“The World As It Was”: 1950s Seeds of Fear Sown Then, Poisoning Us Today

by Edward J. Curtin, Jr., 17 Mar 2024, edwardcurtin.com

Here’s a film about the 1950s – “The World As It Was” – that will tell you a great deal about life in the U.S.A. today, while disabusing anyone of the notion that nostalgia for that mephitic decade is in order, for it was a time when “democracy” tended toward totalitarianism.  In doing so, it sowed the bitter fruit that is poisoning us today.  Without understanding the long-standing effects of those years, it is impossible to grasp the deepest dimensions of our current nightmare.  Chapter One of the documentary series, Four Died Trying, directed by John Kirby and produced by Libby Handros, appropriately subtitled: “To see where we are, look where we’ve been,” does that brilliantly.

The series opened four months ago with “The Prologue” (see review) wherein the lives, importance, and assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy are explored; how the government and media buried the truth of who assassinated them and why; and why it matters today.  Season One will unfold over the next year with chapters covering their lives and assassinations in greater detail.  Season Two will be devoted to the government and media coverups, citizen investigations, and the intelligence agencies and their media mouthpieces’ mind control operations aimed at the American people that continue today.

Chapter One – “The World As It Was” – is about the 1950s, the rise of the Cold War with its propaganda, McCarthyism, the development of the military-industrial complex, the CIA, red-baiting, betrayals, blacklists, the abrogation of civil rights, censorship, and the ever present fear of nuclear war and the promotion of fallout shelters that set the stage for the killing fields of the 1960s and the CIA’s ruthless machinations.

One could say that the 1950s were the Foundation of Fear upon which the horrors of the 1960s were built, and that now we are reaping the flowers of evil that have sprung up everywhere we look because the evils of those decades have never been adequately addressed.

The film opens with President Eisenhower delivering his famous Farewell Address, warning about the growing power of the military-industrial complex.  It is a short and powerful speech, concealing not a smidgen of hypocrisy since it must not have been Eisenhower who presided for eight years from 1953-1961 as this complex grew and grew and he poured 2 billion dollars in weapons and aid and a thousand military advisers to the ruthless and corrupt Vietnamese dictator Ngô Dinh Diêm, while saying he was “an example for people everywhere who hate tyranny and love freedom.”  His speech, while still good, reminds me of all those who spend their careers quiet as church mice as the wars and assassinations rage on only to find their voices in opposition once they retire and collect their pensions.

In response to Eisenhower’s speech, some of which we hear, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. – one of a hundred interviews done for this series over six years –  says that Eisenhower’s speech “is probably today in retrospect the most important speech in American history.”  While that is debatable (I would pick JFK’s American University speech), he rightly emphasizes the importance of Ike’s speech and the fact that his uncle, President Kennedy, fought against the military-industrial complex handed him by Eisenhower.  This is important, for although JFK did get elected emphasizing the Cold War rhetoric of a non-existent missile gap between the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union, he very quickly changed, having been betrayed by Allen Dulles and the CIA regarding the Bay of Pigs, the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, Vietnam, Laos, etc.  The military brass quickly came to hate Kennedy, a naval war hero from World War II.  His three year transformation into a great peacemaker – and therefore his assassination by the CIA and its friends – is a story many still would like to squelch.  This documentary series will prevent that.

Those who control our present and wish to control our future are hard at work today trying to control our past and they will therefore hate this truthful film that is a powerful antidote to their attempted amnesia.  In thirty-nine sobering and entertaining minutes (with emphasis on both words), “The World As It Was” illuminates a period in U.S. history that is often dismissed as the staid and boring 1950s but was in fact when the infrastructure for today’s censorship, chaos, and fear was laid.  It was not the era, as a baseball movie about Jimmy Piersall and his depression from 1957 put it, when “Fear Strikes Out,” but the time when fear burrowed very deep into the American psyche and anxiety became a weapon of state.  Is it any wonder that today could be called “the age of depression, fear, anxiety, and pill popping”?

It is interesting to note that Eisenhower’s warning also contained an admonition to beware the growth of unchecked science, technology, and a future when computers would replace blackboards.  If he were still alive, he would no doubt not recognize the country controlled by what former CIA analyst Ray McGovern calls the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex (MICIMATT).  This vast computer-networked monster makes all the warnings about the 1950s snooping, informing, and controlling activities of government agencies seem like child’s play.  They can’t open snail mail now when few send any, but reading computer messages barely necessitates a finger’s movement, or, as Edward Snowden continues to warn, the entire electronic phone system is open sesame for government controllers. Cell phones acting as cells. Blackboards are gone but so is privacy.  The 1950s’ government snooping is pure nostalgia now.  We are through the looking glass.

As then, so today.  Oliver Stone talks about how in those days the constant refrain was “the Russians are coming” and how his father, a Republican stockbroker, told him that “the Russians are inside the country.”  Fear was everywhere, all induced by anti-communist propaganda aimed at controlling the American people.  Stone is still fighting against the Russia bogeyman stories, while today we are told again and again that the Russians are still coming.  We can only assume they are very slow.

Aside from RFK, Jr. and Oliver Stone, in this episode we hear from NYU Professor Mark Crispin Miller, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the screenwriter Zachary Sklar, et al.  Because the film is so ingeniously crafted, many of the most powerful voices – for and against the government repression and fear mongering – are those from newsreels and television shows that are artfully spliced between the commentaries of the aforementioned people. For example, to see and hear FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover rant about communists under every bed and to juxtapose that with the calm words of the filmmaker Dalton Trumbo, blackballed as one of the so-called Hollywood Ten, is an exercise in distinguishing sanity from insanity.

To this is added music, advertisements, movie clips, and jingles from the 1950s culture that place the viewer back in time to feel and absorb the “vibes,” as it were, of those days.  Like any era, it was complicated, but the overriding message from the fifties was not about mom making tuna noodle casserole but was that there were commie traitors everywhere throughout society and that every citizen’s obligation was to turn them in, even if that meant turning yourself or your parents in.  Children were taught to get under their desks when the sirens sounded, for they were safe places when the Commie Nukes start coming in.  Civil Defense drills screeched this fear into your every fiber.  In April 1957 the Army Air Defense Command announced that new Nike Hercules missiles with atomic warheads would shortly be installed around New York City, Boston, Providence, etc. to replace conventional warheads.  A spokesman added that these nuclear warheads posed no danger and that if the missiles were used, fallout would be “negligible.”  Of course.

Let me use an anecdote from pop culture that I think sums this up this sick game of fear and distrust – paranoia.  My parents were on a game show in the fall of 1957 called “Do You Trust Your Wife?” hosted by Johnny Carson. By the summer of 1958 the show’s title was changed to “Who Do you Trust?”  I used to joke that Hoover or Senator Joseph McCarthy was behind the change and their English grammar was atrocious, but I realize it was probably some fearful lackeys in the television industry.

Professor Miller, an expert in propaganda, narrates quite a bit of “The World As It Was” and does so admirably.  He correctly points out that to describe the 1950s as the era of McCarthyism is a misnomer, for doing so “let’s the whole system off the hook.”  It was the entire government apparatus that promoted a vast repression based on fear whose aim was to create meek, deferential, and obedient people afraid of their own shadows.

He points out that the basis for all this was established by President Truman in 1947 with his Executive Order 9835 that required loyalty oaths to root out communists in the federal government.  Six months later the CIA was founded and the country was off to the Cold War races with its anti-communist hysteria and the institutionalization of a militarized society.

The Red Menace, nuclear extinction, and the need to root out those traitors who were conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government by force were pounded into people’s minds.  Not only were these traitors in the government, but in the schools and colleges, the labor and racial equality movements – more or less everywhere.  Whom could you trust?  No one, not even yourself.  While McCarthy was eventually censored for going too far when Joseph Welch accused him of having no decency during the 1954 Army-McCarthy hearings, he accomplished the goal of injecting his paranoic poison into the social bloodstream where it remains today, part of the political structure shared by both major parties.

But hope arose, as the film concludes, when JFK was elected in 1960 and in his first week in office went to the theater to see the blackballed screenwriter’s Dalton Trumble’s adaptation of Howard Fast’s novel, Spartacus, about a slave revolt in ancient Rome.  Fast was also blacklisted and wrote the novel secretly.  As RFK, Jr. says, this was a symbolic turning point when this was reported on the front page of The New York Times.

“It [the film Spartacus] is a parable of resistance and heroism that speaks unreservedly to our own times,” wrote the great journalist John Pilger in We Are Spartacus shortly before his death. “There is one ‘precise’ provocateur now; it is clear to see for those who want to see it and foretell its actions. It is a gang of states led by the United States whose stated objective is ‘full spectrum dominance’. Russia is still the hated one, Red China the feared one.”

Yes, today we are told that the Russians are still coming.  The bad old days are back.  But so also is the slaves’ rebellion.

Four Died Trying is a documentary series that is part of this rebellion.  Chapter One, “The World As It Was” shines a very bright light on disturbing U.S. history.  It shows where we have been in order to help us see where we are.  Don’t miss it. “The World As It Was”: A Masterly Documentary Film.

Legacy Media Sinking Ship Spawning New Networks

On 10 February, offGuardian’s Kit Knightly wrote a lucid analysis on What NO ONE is saying about Tucker Carlson’s Putin Interview. Among many incisive points, consider the dynamic flip-flopping of the evil empire transmorgrified into its present-day re-branding as being worthy of note:

It’s 2024 & the world is being hurried fast toward the Brave New (“multipolar”) Normal. Russia is on board with Agenda 2030 & very powerful western establishment voices are now promoting Putin & his once-sidelined views.

Compare  Carlson’s Bread and Circuses theatrics with Oliver Stone’s 2017 interviews with Vladimir Putin (parts [1], [2], [3], & [4]). Stone’s films were met with blackout silence by plutocratic controlled and directed media. Seven years on, we are seeing the one percent agenda’s 180-degree reset of “what’s important”. 

On 25 December 2022 Edward Curtin wrote about Tucker Carlson and the JFK Allegations. Among other observations, he pointed out how people can be taken in by what they wish to hear:

If one asks a dedicated believer in the truthfulness of The New York Times Corporation or NPR, for example, what they think of Tucker Carlson, they will generally dismiss him with disdain as a right-wing charlatan.  This, of course, works in reverse if you ask Carlson’s followers what they think of the Times or NPR.  Yet for those who think outside the frame – and they are all non-mainstream – a different picture emerges.  But sometimes they are taken in by those whose equivocations are extremely lawyerly but appeal to what they wish to hear.  This is exactly what a “limited hangout” is.  Snagged by some actual truths, they bite on the bait of nuances that don’t mean what they think they do.

Left vs. right, Fox TV  vs. The New York Times, NPR, etc.: Just as Carlson’s father Dick Carlson ran the CIA-created U.S. overseas radio propaganda under Reagan and George H. W. Bush, so too the present head of National Public Radio, John Lansing, did the same under Barack Obama.  See my piece, Will NPR Now Change its Name to National Propaganda Radio.  Birds of a feather disguised as hawks and sparrows in a game meant to confuse and create scrambled brains.

Kit Knightly's focus on Carlson's "reborn" dazzling visibility pinpoints how the “approved alternative” messaging is more standard fare programming by fat cat interests and players. 

The fact is, legacy media is dying. Which is a good thing. But do you think the establishment doesn’t see this? Do you think it hadn’t occurred to them to get out in front of it by seizing control of the new media platforms and planting “leaders” in supposedly independent media movements?

As we keep having to remind our readers  lately the people and institutions that run the world are not wed to any single platform, method, nation or flag.

Or media.

They bought up all the newspapers because they were useful, they “syndicated” all the television networks because that’s what people were watching… so now as legacy media dies –  what do you think they’re gonna do?

Like a hermit crab swapping out shells – they will simply slide themselves from their old home to a nice shiny new  “indy” one.

Goodbye old fashioned corporate CNN, hello honestly completely organic guerilla news reporting livestreaming on X and getting totally accidentally promoted by the algorithm.

Goodbye long form editorials in newspapers, hello ten-second tiktoks from fake influencers in a government-run opinion factory.

Goodbye Tucker Carlson, paid disinfo promoter, hello Tucker Carlson voice of the new media who somehow still gets promoted by the very forces he’s supposed to be opposing....

The selling point of new-media was that everyone had access to it instantly, with that came realness marked by rawness.  The establishment quickly seized on these markers of authenticity & tried to make them  their own. Now that rawness is being manufactured and realness is being faked on a production line.

And by seeding the rising new-media with establishment voices allegedly “gone rogue” , the establishment takes control of it.

On top of that, the transition from old to new media can also be used to co-opt independent outlets and construct agenda-controlling fake binary narratives. With the old media selling one “side”, and new media the other.

That’s how you end up with crazy scenarios where billionaires like Elon Musk are cast as some kind of outsider, no matter how many Great Reset talking points he promotes, or podcasters like Joe Rogan apparently get $250 million from the system to attack the system, or the “intellectual dark web” shilling vaccines and Israel in equal measure.

The old establishment voices (Guardian, CNN, New York Times or whoever) noisily attack these new “anti-establishment” voices (who are always selling the same agenda in a slightly altered form), knowing that the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” mindset will give them cred  in genuine alternate media circles.

I mean it’s pretty cool to get a big old “ex”-mainstreamer on your side and agreeing to be on your podcast, right? Instant kudos, excitement. “See, even Big Name X admits we’re right about this”. It’s too easy to be seduced by the lure of  “celebrity rebel” narratives. We all want to believe them don’t we.

And thus, by putting “former” establishment insiders in leadership positions of “the alternative”, the ‘elite’ control the direction of their supposed opposition.

Tucker Carlson is the first really big voice to make the swap in a major way, but he won’t be the last. And his interview with Putin is yet another sign of the “approved alternative” messaging.

According to Twitter, the interview has been viewed 140 million times in 24 hours. Tucker and Putin have been trending ever since, promoted by the all powerful algorithm on a site owned by the richest man in the world, whilst simultaneously appearing on the front pages of every paper.

Wow, cool, right. The new media is just so right about this the establishment has no choice but to promote it!

Too easy to  fail to notice there’s nothing really “new” about this media at all. It’s just a very old hermit crab in a very new shell.

Antidote to the Hubris of Greed While Living Under Domination

Seeing the Maximum Security Establishment Denial System
David Ratcliffe, rat haus reality press, 23 Sep 2023

Fifty-four years ago, seeing, calling out, and mocking evil was front-and-center. In the 1970s, I’ll always remember a black-and-white magazine photo of a U.S. GI sitting in a jungle with the caption, “Why die for a piece of junk?” The double entendre of heroin and bankrupt U.S. policy was standard fare in journalism.

Since then, the steady erosion of a virile fourth estate, challenging the increasing reach of corporate state influence and power, has impoverished every facet of society.

Corporate Empire State: Greed Unbounded

In July, investigative reporter Paul Thacker[1] wrote about how “We must reform the law to force corporate documents into the public - Companies continue to hide evidence of product dangers by sealing off records behind corrupt court protective orders.” He was to attend a Toronto conference as part of an international group of academics and journalists focusing on ghostwriting in science and medicine. Enroute from Madrid, he found himself stuck in the Newark airport because of hundreds of flight cancellations. He ended up remotely giving his talk in a quiet corner: “Records entered into public courts belong to the public[2]

Thacker’s paper includes details of how, “Since a 1984 Supreme Court decision on rules of discovery, the courts have become more secretive and willing to keep documents hidden under seal, even if those documents show a product is dangerous.” Discovery is the process when each side in a lawsuit gets to see the other side’s documents, depositions, etc., “to explore if their legal opponent is being honest.” During discovery all such evidence is held in secret.

Citing the UCSF Documents Archive which contains litigation records from tobacco, chemicals, drugs, food, fossil fuels, pharmaceuticals, and opioids, Thacker points out, “These documents are critical to exposing harms caused by corporate products and the strategies companies use to fool people. Litigation is critical to uncovering evidence of dangerous products, but discovery documents are seldom made public, and are often sealed as part of settlements.”

Thacker summarizes a number of significant court cases where sealed documents caused unconscionable injury and death, including the recent, criminally intentional harm referred to as the opioid crisis.[3] He concludes his analysis urging promulgation of sunshine rules and laws in all states:

Texas and Florida have “sunshine” rules and laws that limit the sealing of health and safety records, but corporate lobbying has stymied federal sunshine legislation for decades. While pursuing a federal law to limit court secrecy, reformers should consider advancing similar state laws to ensure court documents, once entered into public courts, remain public.

Corporate historian Richard Grossman (1943-2011) was an extremely articulate, insightful, visionary and teacher, who as my wife has observed, was gifted in the art of listening.[4] He was steadfast and uncompromising in his challenging the disastrous rise of U.S. corporate governance.

You want sanity, democracy, community, an intact Earth? We can’t get there obeying Constitutional theory and law crafted by slave masters, imperialists, corporate masters, and Nature destroyers. We can’t get there kneeling before robed lawyers stockpiling class plunder precedent up their venerable sleeves. So isn’t disobedience the challenge of our age? Principled, inventive, escalating disobedience to liberate our souls, to transfigure our work as humans on this Earth.

Grossman’s analysis spans the timeline from creation of the original slavemaster constitution, through its initial replacement with the post-civil war nascent corporate constitution, into the 20th century and beyond. An excerpt from American Tragedy: The Codification and Institutionalization of Violence[5] on the “Clean Air Act” provides an example of his resolute perspective:

Bush Senior puppeteers staging their heroic drama propped up every scene with the USA’s “cult of divinities.” They, too, drew upon folk memory and folk history—but memory and history fabricated by generations of slavemaster and corporate manager operatives. How easy it was for them to act out a play called “Clean Air” while condemning yet another generation to breathing poisons! By then, it was a tradition. The nation’s poisoners and intimidators had long been engaged in play-acting—see how they camouflaged the rule of law which guaranteed the flooding of the South under toxic chemicals and usurpers.

Of course, very important people throughout our society had to pretend not to see as government and corporate gods drenched the South in poisons and denials of rights, as they drove their Dirty Air laws into the books. These men and women appeared to suffer not as they devoured their reviews, back-slapped at cast parties, accumulated honors, and lived the good life.

Today in Washington DC there is a new generation of tragedy choreographers. The actors’ masks may be different, but the violence is the same. And the corporate press, dressed for critical analysis, continues to fabricate swill.

Revealing the Violence of Present Day Tragedy Choreographers

The above was written in 2004. Coming up on two decades hence, the violence of present day tragedy choreographers is beyond comprehension for too many souls. This is primarily due to the heretofore unthinkable censorship by the U.S. federal government, led by the executive branch, directing big tech to delete all information, analysis, and debate not conforming to official increasingly-injurious-and-lethal dogma.[6]



Four Died Trying: A Powerful, Riveting, and Masterful Documentary Series Begins


by Edward J. Curtin, Jr., 13 Dec 2023, edwardcurtin.com

It is hard for those who have not lived through the shattering political assassinations of the 1960s to grasp their significance for today.  Many might assume that that was then and long before their time, so let’s move on to what we must deal with today.  Let some old folks, the obsessive ones, live in the past.  It is an understandable but mistaken attitude that this documentary will quickly shatter, visually and audibly.  The echoes of those guns that killed President John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Senator Robert F. Kennedy in rapid succession repeat and repeat and repeat down through the years, and their echoes bang off the walls of all today’s news that springs from the cells of all the little digital dinguses that provide a constant stream of distractions and fear porn meant to titillate but not illuminate the connections between then and now, nor those between the four subjects of this illuminating film.

Today we are living the consequences of the CIA/national security state’s 1960s takeover of the country.  Their message then and now: We, the national security state, rule, we have the guns, the media, and the power to dominate you.  We control the stories you are meant to hear.  If you get uppity, well-known, and dare challenge us, we will buy you off, denigrate you, or, if neither works, we will kill you.  You are helpless, they reiterate endlessly.  Bang. Bang. Bang.

But they lie, and this series, beginning with its first installment (see sneak peek here), will tell you why.  It will show why understanding the past is essential for transforming the present.  It will profoundly inspire you to see and hear these four bold and courageous men refuse to back down to the evil forces that shot them down.  It will open your eyes to the parallel spiritual paths they walked and the similarity of the messages they talked about - peace, justice, racism, human rights, and the need for economic equality - not just in the U.S.A. but across the world, for the fate of all people was then, and is now, linked to the need to transform the U.S. warfare state into a country of peace and human reconciliation, just as these four men radically underwent deep transformations in the last year of their brief lives.

Four Died Trying, directed by John Kirby, the wonderful filmmaker who made The American Ruling Class with and about Lewis Lapham, and produced by Libby Handros, his partner in exposing the criminals that run the country, has just begun streaming.

As I watched the first twenty minutes of this opening episode, I was inwardly screaming, feeling deep in my soul how powerfully the film was capturing the essence of the dynamic, prophetic, and charismatic voices of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK, Jr., and RFK.  All shot down – we hear the gun shots – by deep state forces, even as the film artfully juxtaposes this brutality against video clips of new reports, images of advertisements for silly products, and television shows that kept most of the public entertained and distracted during the 1960s carnage.  Doing the Hokey Pokey, as the soundtrack plays it, but not turning around in a profound sense, as did the four who died trying to radically change the country and the world for the better.  Simply as film art, this documentary is ingenious.  And its use of music is great.

I was transported back to the time of my youth.  I was startled again by the powerful courage, passion, and eloquent intelligence of those four compelling voices that once lifted my spirits to the heavens, and I felt the despair as well as each assassination followed the other and my spirits sank.  It is not nostalgic, I am sure, to say that one is hard pressed to find those qualities in many leaders today.  Like others of my generation, I am still trying to grasp the depths of what their assassinations did to me.  Bob Dylan, who came to prominence in the midst of it all, referring ironically to his own life and work, has said that his first girlfriend was named Echo.  I think I know her, for she echoed down the canyons of my mind as I watched this prologue and continues as I now reflect upon it.

So it does get hard to be objective, if that is what you want.  I don’t.  This not-to-be-missed film is truthful, for it uses vintage footage of what these men said and what was said against them by a government/media intent of distorting their messages and their assassinations.  Listen and then research if you have any doubts.  See if the film is truthful or manipulative,  As one who has deeply studied these matters, I can attest to the former.

And I can tell you that if you are young and never knew about these four guys and what men they were - not in any macho sense, but as true lovers of human beings, men with chests, as C.S. Lewis described those who were true and brave and undaunted by the then current vibes that sucked the soul out of you, not pseudo-men in the “pumping iron” sense, not men who tried to appeal to your grossest stereotypes - you are in for a great surprise.  You will yearn to see them resurrected in others today.  In yourselves.  As Malcolm X said hopefully, “The dead are arising.”

This 58 minute prologue touches on many of themes that will follow in the months ahead.   Season One will be divided into chapters that cover the four assassinations together with background material covering “the world as it was” in the 1950s with its Cold War propaganda, McCarthyism, the rise of the military-industrial complex, the CIA, red-baiting, and the ever present fear of nuclear war.  Season Two will be devoted to the government and media coverups, citizen investigations, and the intelligence agencies’ and their media mouthpieces’ mind control operations aimed at the American people that continue today.

One important aspect of this documentary series – never before done in film – is the way it shows the linkages between these four great leaders.  Beside their own words, we hear from their families and associates throughout.  Based on over 120 interviews conducted over many years, we hear from the four men’s children, Vince Salandria, James W. Douglass, Mort Sahl, Harry Belafonte, Khaleed Sayyed,  Earl Caldwell, Clarence Jones, James Galbraith, John Hunt, Stephen Schlesinger, Andrew Young, Oliver Stone, David Talbot, Adam Walinsky, et al.  It is an amazing list of thoughtful commentators who tell the story for the dead men whose living tongues have been silenced, although we are privileged for their fatidic cinematic ghosts to speak to us through archival footage.

In this opening Prologue, I was especially impressed with the words of Vince Salandria, one of the earliest critics of the Warren Commission’s absurd claims, and Adam Walinsky, a former aide and speechwriter for RFK, who made it clear that we are free, no matter what the propagandists tell us.  That freedom to think and act, to make connections between then and now, to see the linkages between the four men’s messages and today, is crucial to carry on their legacy.  That message ends the Prologue.  It is a message of hope in a dark time.

This opening prologue is divided into four parts, each devoted to what each man tried to accomplish.  That is followed by a section on how they died and the ways it was buried, ending with an Epilogue on why they died and why it matters today.

All four died fighting the international power structure, the CIA and FBI, the military-industrial complex, the racist ideology central to the capitalist elites’ economic injustice and warfare state – those deep structures of power that have come to be called the deep state.  They were brothers in arms, their only weapons being their linked arms in a spiritual war against evil forces.  They were men of compassionate conscience, warriors for peace and justice for all.  That is why they were killed.

Four Died Trying is a profound documentary.  It is good that each episode will be a stand-alone short film - that gives the viewer time to absorb its lessons rather than binging on too much too soon.  Once you watch this prologue, with its overview of all to come, you will be hooked.  It is not just revelatory history, but is artistically made, and, dare I say, entertaining.  Kirby and Handros are astute to realize that young people demand more than lectures, and it is to the next generations that these voices must be addressed.  For although the times have changed, in so many ways we are today faced with all the same problems.  The deep wounds of the 1960s were never given careful treatment; they are now suppurating and the infection is spreading.

Then and now.  There is a powerful clip in the film of Senator Robert Kennedy giving a speech in Chicago when he has decided to enter the race for the presidency right after the Tet Offensive in Vietnam, a massive breakout surprise to U.S. authorities who thought they could contain and defeat the Vietnamese struggle for independence; that they had them trapped.  Kennedy has decided to enter the race for President and realizes that supporting a corrupt South Vietnamese government and their ruthless policies aimed at exterminating the Vietcong and North Vietnamese is morally wrong and runs counter to American attestations of the belief in democracy and justice for all.  He says about such an impossible military victory:

. . . and that the effort to win such a victory will only result in the further slaughter of thousands of innocent and helpless people—a slaughter which will forever rest on all our consciences and the national conscience of the country.

His was a powerful moral voice.  Who is standing with the innocent and helpless people today?  And who is standing with the killers?  As Martin Luther King, Jr., put it, “A time comes when silence is betrayal.”  And procrastination is still the thief of time and conscience whispers those pathetic words: Too Late.

Don’t miss Four Died Trying.  I am sure it will affect you deeply and force you to think twice over about what is going on today.

Yes, then and now.  To slightly alter the song, As Time Goes By:

It's still the same old story.
A fight for love and glory.
A case of do and die.
The world will always welcome lovers
As time goes by.





A Message to Donald Rumsfeld’s Ghost About My Known Knowns

by Edward J. Curtin, Jr., 9 Oct 2023, edwardcurtin.com

“[I]it has been very obvious for a very long time that the evidence for United States’ crimes of all sorts has been available to anyone who wished to face the truth. It does not take great expertise, just an eye for the obvious and the willingness to do a little homework.... Donald Rumsfeld, as a key long time insider to U.S. deep state operations, was surely aware of my list of known knowns. He was just one of many such slick talkers involved in demonic U.S. operations that have always been justified, denied, or kept secret by him and his ilk. One does not have to be a criminologist to realize these things.... Despite double-talkers like [Rumsfeld], evidence of decades of U.S. propaganda is easy to see through if one is compelled by the will-to-truth.”


Consider how, it makes not the slightest difference whether Obama, Trump or covid occupy the Oval Office. Things only move in one direction.

Intro to the Jonestown Massacre Conspiracies of 1978

Intro to the Jonestown Massacre Conspiracies of 1978
Interview with Author Joseph Green
18 Sep 2023

The following two interviews leverage Joseph Green’s
CIA Makes Science Fiction Unexciting #9: Intro to the Jonestown Massacre Conspiracies 1978
Publisher: ‎ Microcosm Publishing
Published: ‎ August 20, 2018
ISBN-10 ‏: ‎ 1621060136
ISBN-13: ‎ 978-1621060130
“Don’t drink the Kool-Aid!” Most people have heard the phrase, but like so many famous phrases, its origin is a lie. Did Jim Jones lead a cult which killed themselves at his command, or was that story concocted to cover up something more sinister? One fact to consider is that the local coroner reported that the people of Jonestown were murdered, although this was ignored by the American press for unknown reasons. Another fact is that the guy who bought the land for Jonestown was a CIA operative. Also, Jim’s best friend from childhood was a CIA torturer. And the “cult” consisted largely of kidnapped slave labor—mostly Black women. And yet this still barely scratches the surface of a conspiracy that provides a roadmap of how special operations are executed.

See Also:
Foundational research by John Judge:
The Black Hole of Guyana - The Untold Story of the Jonestown Massacre 1985
The Jonestown Banks 1982



Another Magical JFK Assassination Pseudo-Debate and Limited Hangout

Worthy Of Note:
Best Sellers in Communication & Media Studies
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters Paperback – October 19, 2010
Evidence, buttressed by the following analysis, that corporate empire state dogma is losing significant ground in the entrenched psyop-war for hearts and minds.

by Edward J. Curtin, Jr., 14 September 2023, edwardcurtin.com

Much has been made of the September 9, 2023 simultaneous reports in The New York Times and Vanity Fair of the claims of a former Secret Service agent, Paul Landis, who was part of the security detail in Dallas, Texas when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963.  Like so many reports by such media that have covered up the truth of the assassination for sixty years, this one about “the magic bullet” is also a red herring.

It encourages pseudo-debates and confusion and is a rather dumb “limited hangout,” which is a strategy used by intelligence agencies to dangle some truth in order to divert attention from core facts of a case they are desperate to conceal. With these particular articles, they are willing to suggest that maybe the Warren Commission’s magic bullet claim is possibly incorrect. This is because so many people have long come to realize that that part of the propaganda story is absurd, so the coverup artists are willing to suggest it might be wrong in order to continue debating meaningless matters based on false premises in order to solidify their core lies.

Despite responses to these two stories about Landis that credit them for “finally” showing that the “magic bullet” claim of the Warren Commission is now dead, it would be more accurate to say they have revived debate about it in order to sneakily hide the fundamental fact about the assassination: that the CIA assassinated JFK.

We can expect many more such red herrings in the next two months leading up to the sixtieth anniversary of the assassination.

They are what one of the earliest critics of The Warren Commission, Vincent Salandria, a brilliant Philadelphia lawyer, called “a false mystery.”  He said:

After more than a half century, the historical truth of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy has been finally established beyond rational dispute. The Kennedy assassination is a false mystery. It was conceived by the conspirators to be a false mystery which was designed to cause interminable debate. The purpose of the protracted debate was to obscure what was quite clearly and plainly a coup d’état. Simply stated, President Kennedy was assassinated by our U.S. national security state in order to abort his efforts to bring the Cold War to a peaceful conclusion.

That the corporate mainstream should trumpet these reports as important is to be expected, but that they are also so greeted by some people who should know better is sad.  For there is no mystery about the assassination of President Kennedy; he was assassinated by the CIA and the evidence for this fact has long been available. And the Warren Commission’s claim that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the so-called “magic bullet” – Commission Exhibit 299 – that entered JFK’s back and exited his neck and then went into the back of Gov. John Connally, who was sitting in the front seat, zigzagging in multiple directions, causing him five wounds and then emerging in pristine condition, has always been risible.  Only fools or those ignorant of the details have ever believed it, but desperate conspirators led by the late Arlen Specter, the future Senator, did desperate things for The Warren Commission in order to pin the rap on the patsy Oswald and cover-up for the killers.

I could spend many words explaining the details of the government conspiracy to assassinate JFK, why they did it, and have been covering it up ever since.  But I have done this elsewhere.  If you wish to learn the truth from credible sources, I would highly recommend that you watch the long version of Oliver Stone’s documentary JFK Revisited; Through the Looking Glass and then closely read the transcripts and interviews in James DiEugenio’s crucial compendium of transcripts and interviews for the film.  You will immediately realize that these recent revelations are a continuation of the coverup.

This should be immediately intuited by the titles of the two pieces.  The New York Times’ article, written by its chief White House correspondent Peter Baker, who previously worked for the Washington Post for twenty years, including four years as its Moscow bureau chief, is entitled JFK Assassination Witness Breaks His Silence and Raises New Questions. (The Times and Washington Post have long been the CIA’s mouthpieces.) The Vanity Fair article is written by James Robenalt, a colleague of John Dean of Watergate infamy, and is entitled A New JFK  Assassination Revelation Could Upend the Long-Held “Lone Gunman” Theory.

For anyone with a soupçon of linguistic analytical skill and a rudimentary knowledge of the JFK assassination, those titles immediately induce skepticism.  “New questions”?  Don’t we already have the answers we need.  “Could Upend the Long-Held ‘Lone Gunman’ Theory”?  So we must keep debating and researching the obvious.  Why?  To protect the CIA.

Both articles go on to expound on how the sympathetically described poor conscience-stricken old guy Landis’s claim that he found the so-called pristine magic bullet on the top back of the car seat where JFK was sitting and placed it on Kennedy’s stretcher in Parkland Hospital without telling anyone for all these decades is an earth shattering revelation.  And as they do so, they make sure to slip in a series of falsehoods to reinforce the essence of the government’s case.

If anyone is interested in the facts concerning the physical evidence, all one need do is read Vincent Salandria’s analysis here.  Once you have, you will realize the hullabaloo about Landis is a pseudo-debate.

These articles about Landis reinforce what Dr. Martin Schotz describes in his book History Will Not Absolve Us, and what he said in a talk twenty-five years ago.  He made a distinction between the waters of knowledge and the waters of uncertainty.  In the case of the JFK assassination, the public is allowed to think anything they want, but they are not allowed to know the truth, although since the Warren Commission was released it was evident that “no honest person could ever accept the single bullet theory.”  And he then added this about pseudo- debates :

The lie that was destined to cover the truth of the assassination was the lie that the assassination is a mystery, that we are not sure what happened, but being free citizens of a great democracy we can discuss and debate what has occurred. We can petition our government and join with it in seeking the solution to this mystery. This is the essence of the cover-up.

The lie is that there is a mystery to debate. And so we have pseudo-debates. Debates about meaningless disputes, based on assumptions which are obviously false. This is the form that Orwell’s crimestop has taken in the matter of the President’s murder. I am talking about the pseudo-debate over whether the Warren Report is true when it is obviously and undebatably false. . . . Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo-debate is a benign activity. That it simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant. This is not the case. I say this because every debate rests on a premise to which the debaters must agree, or there is no debate. In the case of pseudo-debate the premise is a lie. So in the pseudo-debate we have the parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the more malignant because it is subtle. The unsuspecting person who is witness to the pseudo-debate does not understand that he is being passed a lie. He is not even aware that he is being passed a premise. It is so subtle that the premise just passes into the person as if it were reality. This premise—that there is uncertainty to be resolved—seems so benign. It is as easy as drinking a glass of treated water.

But the fact remains that there is no mystery except in the minds of those who are willing to drink this premise. The premise is a lie, and a society which agrees to drink such a lie ceases to perceive reality. This is what we mean by mass denial.

That the entire establishment has been willing to join in this process of cover-up by confusion creates an extreme form of problem for anyone who would seek to utter the truth. For these civilian institutions—the media, the universities and the government—once they begin engaging in denial of knowledge of the identity of the assassins, once they are drawn into the cover-up, a secondary motivation develops for them. Now they are not only protecting the state, they are now protecting themselves, because to expose the obviousness of the assassination and the false debate would be to reveal the corrupt role of all these institutions. And there is no question that these institutions are masters in self-protection. Thus anyone who would attempt to confront the true cover-up must be prepared to confront virtually the entire society. And in doing this, one is inevitably going to be marginalized.

And to mention just one false premise of the Landis saga (beside the one that there is uncertainty to be resolved; and there are many others, but one will suffice, since I don’t want to enter into a pseudo-debate), it is that the so-called magic bullet in evidence – CE 399 – the one discussed in these articles, is not even the one said to be found somewhere in Parkland Hospital, and the chain of custody for that bullet – or some bullet – is broken in many places (see James DiEugenio, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass ).

Phantom bullets and plenty of magic go into the creation and destruction of this tall tale told to camouflage the CIA’s guilt in its killing of President Kennedy.  If you believe in magic and mystery, The New York Times’ Peter Baker has these words for you, if you can understand them:

Mr. Landis’s account, included in a forthcoming memoir, would rewrite the narrative of one of modern American history’s most earth-shattering days in an important way. It may not mean any more than that. But it could also encourage those who have long suspected that there was more than one gunman in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, adding new grist to one of the nation’s enduring mysteries.

Yes, those four English lads said it in 1967: “The magical mystery tour is hoping to take you away” into an enduring mystery, even though the case was solved long ago.




22 years ago:
Graeme MacQueen on 11 Sep and Anthrax Attacks

It was twenty-two years ago today when the United States deep-state launched another stage in its terrorist campaigns. This time it began with the explosions of four buildings, three in New York City, and one at the Pentagon, only to be followed shortly by biological weapon attacks with weapons-grade anthrax meant to ratchet up the fear level to extreme hysteria. Both intended to support the so-called war on terror that has never ended.

The Go-To books to understand the dynamics of this operation are both authored by Graeme MacQueen (1948-2023). Graeme MacQueen received his Ph.D. in Buddhist Studies from Harvard University and taught in the Religious Studies Department of McMaster University for 30 years. While at McMaster he became founding Director of the Centre for Peace Studies at McMaster, after which he helped developed the B.A. program in Peace Studies and oversaw the development of peace-building projects in Sri Lanka, Gaza, Croatia and Afghanistan. He was a member of the organizing committee of the Toronto Hearings held on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, was a member of the international 9/11 Consensus Panel, and was co-editor of The Journal of 9/11 Studies.

In addition, the film, Peace, War and 9/11 has just been released. “In this documentary, filmed six months before his passing, eminent scholar and lifelong peace activist Graeme MacQueen shares his final words on 9/11, the 2001 anthrax attacks, and the goal of abolishing war.” To facilitate reviewing his writings in preparation for this film, Graeme asked my help to create a digital book format similar to False Mystery, which was completed in early April of this year.


Looking Closely at the September 2001 Attacks
rat haus reality press, 2023
freely available in HTML and PDF formats at:

This eBook by Graeme MacQueen contains a collection of his articles and essays on the attacks of September 11, 2001, the subsequent anthrax attacks, and analyses of other false flag operations. They are profoundly important and shatter the official versions of those events. No one reading this book can come away from it not convinced that the U.S. government is a terrorist state. MacQueen’s conclusions are not based on rhetoric but on a deep empirical analyses, facts not propaganda. With this volume, Graeme MacQueen takes his place alongside David Ray Griffin as a prophet without honor in his own time. History will declare him a hero. To write the Book’s Introduction is a great honor, for my esteem for Graeme and his work is immense.

—Edward Curtin

“To study the [11 September] day’s events as they unfolded on television is to experience in a shockingly direct way how a well-oiled propaganda system—of which television is a central component—can spin grand and lethal yarns that silence the citizens who experience, who witness, who suffer, and who constitute the epistemic backbone of democracy. The ability of this propaganda system to achieve the triumph of the Official Narrative in a matter of hours suggests to us that while good science is necessary for dispelling the Official Narrative, alone it may not be sufficient.

“Oftentimes, researchers (engineers, scientists, academics, etc.) carry on their research as if they were merely studying the natural world — a world that has no interest in the researchers and does not look back at them. But in cases such as 9/11, researchers are working within an intellectual context shaped by an intelligent opponent. This opponent is neither inert nor disinterested, but looks back at the researcher. It has intentionally laid down sets of false claims and dead-end trails and can be expected to continue to do so.

“This does not mean that researchers and activists should give up their focus on good science. Rather, it means that those who are dedicated to revealing the truth about 9/11 must think deeply about how to carry out good science and good communication within the specific context of a still-ongoing psychological operation.

“Evidence could not stop the Official Narrative from triumphing on 9/11, and evidence alone will not defeat the Official Narrative now.”

Chapter 23, The Triumph of the Official Narrative:
How the TV Networks Hid the Twin Towers’ Explosive Demolition on 9/11


The 2001 Anthrax Deception
The Case for Domestic Conspiracy
Clarity Press, 2014

From the book's Conclusion:

“What is to be said about the success or failure of the anthrax operation? The attacks were certainly successful in causing an infusion of funds into bioweapons work in the U.S. Already in 2008, Scientific American noted that the 2001 attacks “sparked a massive infusion of research funds to counter civilian bioterrorism, $41 billion spread over seven federal departments and agencies.”[6] By 2011 the 2002-2011 expenditures were estimated at $70 billion.[7]

“In 2008 a large new biodefense laboratory, to cost $143 million and occupy 160,000 square feet, was dedicated at Fort Detrick, Maryland. This is where the late Bruce Ivins, driven to his death by the FBI, had worked. When it opened, Jamie Johnson, of the Department of Homeland Security, said: “This is a great day.”[8]

“But if those institutions that grow fat on military spending were made happy by the anthrax attacks, the failures of the operation are also noteworthy. The attempt to implicate Muslim groups and states collapsed almost immediately after the Patriot Act was pushed through Congress. The decision to invade Iraq, made well before 9/11, was not changed but its justification now depended on a set of unvarnished lies that failed to convince the international community. U.S. leaders had no Security Council cover and, therefore, no legal justification whatsoever for their clear act of aggression. This was not a trivial failure. While it demonstrated the unilateralism that groups such as the Project for the New American Century championed, ignoring international law had a price. The price was erosion of international sympathy for the U.S. government and a growing conviction that the U.S. was itself a rogue state run by criminals.”



Dave Ratcliffe
Assistant Director
Museum of Hidden History
2915 North George Street, Suite 2
York, PA 17406
Donations are tax-deductible

In Our Name: On Exercising Moral Conscience
Given US Cluster Munitions to Ukraine

Featured image: Demonstration cluster bomb, where bomblets are visible: M190 Honest John chemical warhead section containing demonstration M134 GB (Sarin) bomblets.

The word conscience, which means our ability to judge our own actions according to right and wrong, is derived from the Latin word conscientia, meaning a knowing together with another or others. That word in turn derives from con (cum) = with + scire = to know. Thus conscience, which usually refers to one person’s conscience, also involves a sharing with others, a knowing with. The word science as we understand it today, also derives from scire, and in the 19th century before the modern understanding of science developed, the word science simply meant knowledge. Furthermore, the word consciousness also has the same root, suggesting the connection between conscience and consciousness and the social nature of the sense of right and wrong and shared human consciousness.

The U.S. is to send cluster munitions to Ukraine.

In his December 2001 essay, In Our Name, John Judge analyzed the broader political and historical framework of the 11 September attacks and how “All that has brought us to this juncture in history and all that will follow, has been and is being done in our name, in the name of the American people, in the name of protecting democracy and freedom. But at the same time, most of what has been done and is being done exists behind a veil of secrecy, a veil of national security and covert military operations.” His examination of the psychological, sociological, political, and economic costs of war-making are ever more relevant two decades on. The beginning of Section 6, At The Crossroads, opens with:

I had a dream image about September 11. I grew up in the halls of the Pentagon, because members of my family were civilian employees there for many decades. I felt my windows shake when the plane exploded into the side of the building. I was offered a job at the Pentagon library when I was 15 years old, but my moral consciousness was already too far developed to accept it. After my relatives died, I took a photo of the Pentagon that they kept in their house, and hung it in my room. I know of no other reason to build a five-sided figure, which points to the south, except that in the arcane it is used in rituals to summon the Devil. While I do not believe in the Devil, I do believe in human evil. I always felt that the structure summoned it. In the ritual, the pentangle not only summons but also contains the Devil. My dream image was the plane breaking the pentangle and releasing the Devil. Pan-daemonium, as Milton called the capital of Hell. That evil must again be contained, and not summoned again.

The unmitigated evil being carried out IN OUR NAME manifests unbridled malevolence. The justification for the latest unconscionable Jaws-of-Hell-Weapons-to-Ukraine decision and promotion by executive branch, military, intelligence-media, congressional, academia, think-tank talking head “experts” is one more cravenly lethal “policy” laying bare the moral corruption of, in Steven Newcomb’s words, this Empire Domination Model of Christian Discovery. Life-affirming moral conscience is required to pierce the fog of thingism, identify and recognize the life-negating agendas being sold as necessary, and exercise our birthright intelligence to liberate consciousness and protect and defend ALL Life on Mother Earth.

Each of us is answerable to our Creator. Each of us has an immutable relationship with the source of our existence. The ineffable mystery we each embody is eternally framed in the wonder of whatever is really going on here.  Recognizing the intelligence we have been given by our Creator and using it as clearly and coherently as we possibly can is the antidote to the entire techno-logic perceptional reality that is based upon death. The eventual, inevitable outcome of such reality is oblivion and annihilation. It is our responsibility as human beings to see and acknowledge this and then act upon this understanding.


A Most Evil Weapon; A Most Heinous Crime

Tom Greco Introduction:

A heinous war crime is about to be committed by a country that purports to be the champion of democracy and human rights. Yes, the United States is preparing to send cluster bombs to the Ukraine for use in the war against Russia. Do you know the kinds of injuries these weapons cause, that they often fail to explode until much later when innocent civilians happen to accidentally set them off, and that these weapons have been banned by the Geneva Convention signed by 123 countries, but NOT by the United States.

Mike Boddington UXO Report:

This is an interim edition: a bonus, if you will. It is brought about as a result of hearing the news that the USA is to send cluster munitions to Ukraine, in order to continue the support of NATO and the west for that country in its battle against Russia. If this happens it will be the most evil and heinous crime. It will be the act of people who have no care or concern for the lives and welfare of others. By way of response, I am reproducing here an article that I wrote in 2021 entitled ‘An Experience in Your Life’ and which has had limited circulation, but has not aired in this medium. It offers a scenario of a regular, everyday person in SE Asia encountering an unexploded device – here referred to as a cluster sub-munition or bombie.

I came to Laos by way of Cambodia. Getting involved in the rehabilitation of unexploded ordnance (UXO) survivors in that country was harrowing – as it has proved in any country where I have met with the victims of those devices personally. What follows is from my experience in post-conflict countries – not in countries that are involved in active warfare. There has been war. It is over. Now we are in conflict-recovery mode. But the wounding and killing goes on – not amongst the combatants, the armed forces, but almost entirely amongst the civilian population. Not just the civilian population but very often the civilian population that was not even born at the time that the conflict was active. Those people had lost their limbs as a result of an encounter with an unexploded device of some sort. Here is a scenario for you, dear reader. This is about you – your experience.



Conflicting Perspectives Regarding Sacred and Significant Places of Original Nations and Traditional Healers

It is inspiring and a great honor to work with Steven Newcomb, amplifying his thoughts, research, critical analysis, and perspective. The lens through which he sees the world is imbued with the wisdom and timeless Life-Ways experience of Original Free Nations and Peoples beyond the confines of the mental world of domination promulgated by European Settler Colonialism and Western Imperialism.  The following presents the opening segment and Conclusion of his 11 August 2023 essay published on Original Free Nations, followed by the Contents listing of the complete essay. —Dave Ratcliffe

“The words that we use create and maintain the reality that we experience.”
Steven Newcomb, On the Doctrine of Christian Domination, 15 Dec 2021

Conflicting Perspectives Regarding the Holy Mountain Called “San Francisco Peaks,” and Other Sacred and Significant Places of Original Nations and Traditional Healers

Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape)

Our original nation ancestors understood mountains and other geographical areas as living beings imbued with spiritual energy. Our spiritual people knew and still know how to spiritually attune and align themselves with that energy in a ceremonial manner, by means of our languages and ceremonial ways. This has always been the central purpose of our Spiritual Way of Life.

Prefatory Note: The Free Existence of Original Nations

Mentally picture the free and independent existence of all the Original Nations and Peoples on this continent, extending back to the beginning of time through their oral histories and oral traditions, before the Christian Europeans had invasively arrived. Throughout that timespan, our ancestors lived free from the words and mental world of Western Europe. Our ancestors lived entirely free from the clever Euro-American metaphors, ideas, and arguments now used on a daily basis by the United States government against our nations and peoples.

Our original nation ancestors understood mountains and other geographical areas as living beings imbued with spiritual energy. Our spiritual people knew and still know how to spiritually attune and align themselves with that energy in a ceremonial manner, by means of our languages and ceremonial ways. This has always been the central purpose of our Spiritual Way of Life.

Our traditional healers and medicine people knew and still know why it is necessary to conduct ceremonies, especially in Sacred and Significant Places of concentrated spiritual energy. Even today our traditional spiritual people continue to carry on their ways, to fulfill the sacred responsibilities that our peoples have to care for our rightful place on Mother Earth.

However, invading and colonizing peoples from Western Europe eventually arrived to this continent more than five centuries ago. They showed no respect for the Life-Ways and free existence of the original nations and peoples because they had carried with them across the ocean, a mental world of domination. Based on the Bible, the invading nations of Christendom mentally claimed that their “God” had “given” them the lands where our Ancestors were living,[1] and where our spiritual people carry out their authority and sacred responsibilities.

The invading peoples assumed that their “God” had given them the right to use their ideas and arguments as a means of depriving our nations and peoples of our original free existence. They assumed that their “God” had chosen them as a people with whom “He” would make a divine “covenant” or treaty.[2] And on that basis they further assumed their “God” had “given them” the right to name and claim as their own,[3] the lands and Sacred Places with which our original nations and peoples already had and still have a well-established spiritual relationship that has lasted millennia, to use Western time-frame language.

The difference between our original-free-existence perspective, and the claim-of-a-right-of-domination perspective of the dominating society, invariably produces conflict. That difference gives rise to competition between those who carry these two distinctive perspectives over questions of power and decision-making. Given the existence of these two opposing perspectives, both of which are competing to make final decisions regarding the use of a particular geographical area, the question becomes: which perspective will end up in the final decision-making position? Now apply this question to a dispute between the United States government and traditional ceremonial Native people regarding a Sacred and Significant Place of original nations — so-called San Francisco Peaks, a place for which our original nations have our own name in our own respective languages.

. . . .


These days, it is typical to hear the United States of America being portrayed as a “democracy” even though they (the “States” ) have operated for more than two centuries as a federal system of domination in relation to the original nations and peoples of this continent. This is especially true when it comes to our Sacred and Significant Places. Federal employees of the U.S. government, and even tribal government officials, are not likely to have known before now the information about domination found in this essay. No one, however, who ends up reading this essay, will be able to feign ignorance about the U.S. claim of a right of domination.

As a model of a way forward for Traditional Healers and Ceremonial Leaders, a powerful challenge to the United States was presented by the Yakama Nation in the amicus legal brief that the nation submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in the Cougar Den case in 2018. The Yakama Nation, guided by the leadership of Chairman JoDe Goudy, and influenced by the framework of domination found in this essay, decided upon that course of action. It marks the first time that an Original Nation of the continent has directly challenged the U.S. government’s claim of a right of discovery and domination.

Anyone who might wish to make a counterargument to oppose what we have presented here, is going to have a difficult time crafting a meaningful and effective response to rebut the information we have provided. After all, it would be senseless for anyone to claim that the language of domination found in the Vatican papal bulls, or in the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling, and elsewhere does not actually exist. It does exist. Authoritative sources spanning centuries contain this information, even those documents which illustrate the organic laws of the United States.

Our responsibility is to have dialogue with U.S. government officials, including, when possible, members of the U.S. Supreme Court,[80] and hold them accountable to end their nefarious claim of a right of Christian domination over our spiritual people, over our Sacred and Significant Places, and over our Original Nations and Peoples and our Homelands. We need to transition to decision-making based on the Natural Laws of Creation that sustain all Life, which are the basis for our ceremonies. Those Laws of Creation guided our Ancestors and Spiritual Ways of Life before and after the invasive arrival of the ships of Christendom.




Four Died Trying

A Feature Documentary Series

Four Died Trying explores the extraordinary lives and calamitous deaths of President John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy.

Filmed primarily from the vantage point of their children, close associates, and witnesses to their assassinations, the series considers the "turning” each of these men were making in the last year or so of their lives. Were they embracing ever-broader conceptions of the struggle for peace, social change and economic justice, and what forces may have stirred in opposition?  What lessons do their lives and deaths hold for us today, as the world once again trembles on the cliff of an uncertain future?

Six years in the making, with nearly a hundred interviews and counting, the first installment of Four Died Trying was released on22  November 2023, to help commemorate the 60th anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination.





58 min transcript: JRE w/RFK on Vaccines + Childhood Injuries + Diseases 6-15-23

Apprehending the False Promise of Biosecurity was published in November 2020.  It described how the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NVICA) of 1986 “gave pharmaceutical companies what amounted to blanket immunity[27] from liability for injuries resulting from childhood vaccines— ‘no matter how toxic the ingredients, how negligent the manufacturer or how grievous the harm’[28]—while also exempting companies from the transparency and document discovery normally associated with litigation.” It also summarized the Corruption of Medical Research and Vaccine Consequences: from infectious to chronic diseases based on annotated transcripts of Robert Kennedy, Jr. debating Alan Dershowitz on 23 July 2020 and a 15 May 2020 interview for Perspectives on the Pandemic.

The following includes a 58-plus minute transcript, produced by Anne Dachel, of Robert Kennedy, Jr. speaking about vaccines and childhood injuries and diseases.

From Simon & Schuster:
“Anne Dachel is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire and has taught for over 30 years. She works primarily with developmentally disabled children. She is married and the mother of four children, including an adult son on the autism spectrum. Anne writes for the online blog, Age of Autism.”

Ms. Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism (established 2007). As part of her work, she is practiced at producing highly relevant text transcript segments of recorded conversations and interviews. Source for the following:


ANYONE who attacks Robert Kennedy, Jr. and dismisses him as anti-vaccine and dangerous, should have to respond to the following questions concerning what Kennedy revealed during his interview with Joe Rogan.

  • HOW do you explain the government’s denial of any connection between vaccines and autism, and yet in cases like Sarah Bridges, her son was awarded $20 million dollars for vaccine-induced autism in federal court?
  • WHY do our health agencies rely on vaccine promoters to prove vaccine safety?
  • WHY does the government selectively ignore critical vaccine research that challenges their safety claims, like in the case of Dr. Thomas Burbacher’s macaque monkey study?
  • WHY didn’t health officials publicly disclose findings clearly linking vaccines to autism revealed at a secret meeting in 2000 at a Methodist retreat center in Norcross, GA? [see Simpsonwood Meeting]
  • WHY is every child mandated to be vaccinated when manufacturers and the Supreme Court state that vaccines are “unavoidably unsafe”?
  • WHY do health officials declare vaccines to be safe and effective when there were never double blind studies on any of them during licensure?
  • WHY aren’t parents told that vaccine makers have no liability for the products they’re selling?
  • WHY is there no interest in what’s causing the exponential increase in autism that top experts like Dr. Irva Hertz-Picciotto say is a true epidemic of disabled children.
  • WHY are we exposing children to neurotoxic vaccine adjuvants like aluminum?
  • WHY are over half of children in America chronically ill, when 40 years ago, it was only six percent?
  • WHY are our children the most vaccinated and the most chronically ill kids in the world?
  • WHY aren’t health officials answerable on any of these questions?

RFK Jr on Joe Rogan Ep 1999 - Vaccines & Childhood Injuries & Disease
15 Jun 2023 (3:05:37)

By Anne Dachel

This is a remarkable interview by Joe Rogan.

Robert Kennedy, Jr. explains how he became aware of the background of our unsafe, unchecked vaccine schedule and the alarming side effects connected to it.

If even a fraction of the information Kennedy cites here is true, this is the biggest scandal in public health care in history.

Kennedy methodically presents the web of corruption, collusion and cover-up that is simply indefensible. He talks about the phony science that has been used by compromised health officials to promote vaccines as safe and effective AND the total lack of ANY genuine research on vaccine side effects.

Kennedy describes his personal encounters with vaccine promoters like Paul Offit, Peter Hotez  and Tony Fauci, people well ensconced with Big Pharma.

He cites 1986 as the year that started the chronic disease epidemic in America because of the passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act that year. This removed any liability for damages on the part of the vaccine makers, and the childhood schedule exploded in the following years.

Kennedy talks about a lot of familiar events in the history of vaccine damage cover-up, including the secret 2000 meeting of health officials and Big Pharma at Simpsonwood in Norcross, Georgia where they discussed the clear link they were seeing between vaccines and autism, and his bombshell story, Deadly Immunity published in 2005 in Salon and Rolling Stone, and later retracted under pressure from the vaccine makers.

So why aren’t the vaccine promoters and insiders willing to debate Kennedy on his issues?

 Where is their data that disprove his claims? As Kennedy reveals, Paul Offit and Tony Fauci promised to send him the safety “studies” on vaccines, but both men failed to do so. 

IF there are no double blind safety studies on ANY VACCINES, why should Americans allow their children to be industry guinea pigs?

This eye-opening talk needs to be the major focus of anyone running for office. What are elected officials going to do to stop the chronic illness epidemic that Kennedy succinctly ties to the mandated vaccine schedule? How long will our federal health agencies be run at the behest of the industry they’re supposed to oversee?


Beginning at 11:38 through 1:10:20

Kennedy: So these women start showing up at every lecture I give, public lectures. They would come and sit in the front seat, occupy the front, they’d come early and occupy the front row, and then afterwards they’d stay late. They would ask to talk to me.

They would say to me in a very respectful—and by the way, these women all looked kind of similar. They were very pulled together. They were women in childbearing years.

As it turns out, they were all the mothers of intellectually disabled children, and they believed that their children had been injured by the vaccines, by mercury in the vaccines.

They would say to me in a kind of respectful but vaguely scolding way, if you’re really interested in mercury contamination exposures to children, you need to look at the vaccines.

This was something I didn’t want to do.

First of all, I’m not a public health person. I wanted to do environmental stuff.

Second of all, I’ve been involved, since I was a little kid, in the whole area of intellectual disabilities…. My aunt had been intellectually disabled, my Aunt Rosemary. Eunice Shriver who is my godmother founded Special Olympics in 1969

My family had written a lot of the legislation that protected people and gave rights to people with intellectual disabilities.

…Public Health authorities were saying that these women were crazy. But they didn’t look crazy to me, and they were rational. They weren’t excitable. And they had done their research

And I was like, I should be listening to these people, even if they’re wrong. Someone needs to listen to them. …

I had seen so many times when the scientists were wrong and the commercial fishermen were right about what was happening in the Hudson River. …

If a woman tells you something about her child, you should listen.

One of these women came to my home… and her name was Sarah Bridges. She was a psychologist from Minnesota.  ...She took out of the trunk of her car, a pile of scientific studies that was 18 inches thick. She put it on my front porch, my stoop, and then she rang the bell.

And then she pointed to that pile. She said, “I’m not leaving here until you read those.”

As it turns out, her son, Porter Bridges, had been a perfectly healthy kid, got a battery of vaccines when he was two, and lost the ability to speak. He lost his toilet training. He began head banging and engaging in other stereotypical behavior like stimming, hand flapping, toe walking and got an autism diagnosis. The Vaccine Court had awarded her $20 million for acknowledging that the child had gotten autism from the vaccines. She didn’t want it to happen to other kids.

I sat down with this pile of studies. I’m used to reading science. I’ve very comfortable it. I wanted to be a scientist when I was a little kid. My legal career has been about science.

Virtually all the cases, hundreds and hundreds of cases involve some scientific controversy, so I’m comfortable with reading science. I know how to read it critically. I know how to look for the flaws in it, how to attribute weight to the various studies.

I sat down while she was there, and I read through the abstracts of these studies, one after the other. Before I was six inches down in that pile, I recognized that there was this huge delta between what the public health agencies were saying, were telling us about vaccine safety and what the actual peer-reviewed published science was saying.

Then I took the next step. I started calling people, high level public officials. I had access to everyone. I called Frances Collins. I called Marie McCormick who ran the Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences. I called Kathleen Stratton at the National Academy of Sciences. It was a chief staffer, and I was asking her about these studies. I realized, during these conversations, that none of these people had read any of the science. They were just repeating things that they had been told about the science.

They kept saying to me, I can’t answer that detailed question. You need to talk to Paul Offit.

Paul Offit is a vaccine developer who made a $186 million deal with Merck on the rotavirus vaccine. It was odd to me that government regulators were saying you should talk to somebody in the industry.

I used to talk to EPA people all the time, asking them, what does this provision mean in the permit, why did you put it in there.  And if they said to me, I don’t know, what don’ t you go talk to the coal industry or this lobbyist from the coal industry, and he will tell you what we’re doing, I would have been very puzzled and indignant.

It was weird to me that the top regulators in the country were telling me, go talk to somebody who’s an industry insider because we don’t understand the science.

When I talked to him, I caught him in a lie. And both of us knew he was lying, and that both of us knew that he was lying.

Rogan: What was the lie?

Kennedy: I asked him this question: Why is it that CDC and every state regulator recommends that pregnant women do not eat tuna fish to avoid the mercury, but that CDC is recommending mercury-containing flu shots with a huge bolus dose of mercury. I mean massive doses to pregnant women in every trimester of pregnancy?

And he said to me, “Well Bobby, …there’s two kinds of mercury. There’s a good mercury, and there’s a bad mercury.”

And I knew there’s a different kind of mercury in the vaccines. It’s ethylmercury in the vaccines and methylmercury in the fish. But I know a lot about mercury. I’ve been suing people. When you sue somebody, you get a PhD in that. You know more than anybody in the world. You have to, or you’re not going to win your lawsuit. So I knew a lot about mercury.

I knew that his argument was not with me but it was with the periodic tables, because there’s no such thing as a good mercury.

And I also knew the history of why he was saying that. Mercury was added to vaccines in a form called thimerosal in 1932. Eli Lilly, which was the manufacturer—people knew then…mercury is a thousand times more neurotoxic than lead.

You would never shoot lead into your baby.

Rogan: Why was thimerosal introduced?

Kennedy: It was allegedly introduced as a preservative … It wasn’t a good preservative.

What NIH admitted to me in 2016, the real reason it was there was as an adjuvant.  An adjuvant is a toxic material that they add to dead virus vaccines to amplify the immune response. …Regulators expressed a preference for dead virus vaccines.

A dead virus vaccine however, will not produce a durable or robust immune response enough to get a license. The way you get a license for a vaccine showing that you got an antibody response for a certain amount of time, and that is a strong antibody response. But the dead virus vaccine won’t produce that.

But vaccinologists figured out that if you added something tremendously toxic to the vaccine, that your body confuses that toxic product, you add it with the dead antigen, which is the viral particle. Your body confuses that toxin with the viral particle and gets frightened and mounts huge, humongous immune response. The next time it sees that virus, the immune response is there.

At that point vaccinologists went around searching around the world trying to find the most horrendously toxic materials to add to vaccines.

There’s a mantra in vaccinology that the more toxic the adjuvant, the more robust the immune response. That’s why toxicologists and vaccinologists don’t get along with each other.

Because the toxicologists would say to the vaccinologists, I understand it gives you an immune response, but then what is the fate of that in your body? Where is it going? Is it being excreted? Is it being lodged in the brain? Is it penetrating the blood brain barrier?

The vaccinologists could not answer those questions and did not want to, so they basically moved the toxicologists out of these—the whole vaccine universe.

So when it was added in 1932, the industry said, Eli Lilly said…

Because everybody was saying, how can you put mercury into a child? Who would do that?

They said, it’s a different kind of mercury. It’s ethylmercury, and ethylmercury is excreted very quickly. …

They had no science to say that, but that’s what they were saying for years.

THEN in 2003, a CDC scientist Pichichero did a study where he gave tuna sandwiches that were mercury contaminated to children and then measured their blood. The mercury from the tuna sandwich was there, half life, 64 days later. So it was still there 64 days.

Then he injected the children with mercury from a vaccine, and that mercury disappeared from their blood within a week.

This kind of confirmed what Eli Lilly had said in 1932—Oh, it disappears really quickly from the body. That was published in the Lancet or Pediatrics. 

But immediately the journal began getting letters from people including this famous scientist called Dr.  Boyd  Haley, who was the chair of the chemistry department, University of Kentucky.

He said, “What happened to the mercury?” Pichichero couldn’t find it in the children’s urine or in their feces or hair or sweat or nails. So where is it?

NIH actually commissioned a study, because at that point they were really trying to figure out whether this was dangerous. They commissioned a very famous scientist called Thomas Burbacher at the University of Washington, Seattle to do a study with monkeys, macaques.

And he did the same study Pichichero, but he did something you can’t do with children. He then killed the monkeys, and then he looked for the mercury.

What he found was the mercury, yes, it left their blood immediately, the ethylmercury from the vaccines was gone from their blood in a week, and the methylmercury from the tuna fish was there two months later.

But when he sacrificed the monkeys and did postmortems, he found that the mercury had not left their body. Instead, the reason it was disappearing from their blood is because ethylmercury crosses the blood brain barrier much easier than methylmercury.

The ethylmercury from the vaccines was going directly to the brains of these animals and was lodging there and causing severe inflammation.

We now know it’s there 20 years later.

So when I’m on the phone with Offit, and I said—he said the ethylmercury is excreted quickly, I said, “How do you know that?”

He said, “Because of the Pichichero study. Because the study by Pichichero found that it was excreted quick in a week.

And I said, “But you’re familiar with the Burbacher study that showed it’s gone to the brain?”

And there was dead silence on the phone.

And then he said to me, “Well, you’re right. It’s not that study. It’s a whole mosaic of studies.”

And I said, “Can you cite any of them for me?”

And he said, “I’ll send them to you.” And he never did. And that was the last I heard from him. 

So at that point, I knew there was something wrong. And then someone handed me a transcript of a secret meeting that took place in 1999. It might have been 2000.

It was called the Simpsonwood Meeting. And what happened is—

The history is that in 1986. I’ll go back a little further.  In 1979, 80—when I was a kid, I only had three vaccines.

My kids got 72 vaccines. That’s what you need now to get through school. 72 vaccines doses of 16 vaccines.

It started changing in the 80s and 90s.

In 1979, they brought on a vaccine called the diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine.

That vaccine was very dangerous.  It was killing or giving severe brain damage to one in 300 kids. It was pulled in the United States. It was pulled in Europe.

But Bill Gates still gives it to 161 million African children every year.

Rogan: The same vaccine?

Kennedy: The same vaccine. And to south Asian kids.

We now know what that does because the Danish government did a study in 2017 that showed that African kids, and that’s published in a journal called, Biopharma. It was done by the leading deities of African vaccinology, all of them pro vaccine people. …

They went to Africa… They had 30 years of data.

And Gates had gone to the Danish government and said, “Give us money because we’ve saved millions of lives with this vaccine in Africa.”

And the Danish government said, “Can you show us the data?”

And he couldn’t.

So they went to Guinea-Bissau, which is a country in the west of Africa,

The Danes for 30 years had been paying for these very advanced health clinics.  The clinics were weighing every child at three months and at six months.

In the 80s, they began giving the DTP vaccine at the first visit, the three month visit….

As it turns out, they had 30 years of data where half the kids were vaccinated and half the kids were not between two months and five months of age.

It was a perfect natural experiment.

And they went in there, and they looked at 30 years of data, and they found that girls who got that vaccine, the DTP vaccine, were over 10 times more likely to die over the next three months than children who did not. And they weren’t dying of diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis. They were protected against those by the vaccine.

They were dying of anemia… but mainly they were dying of pneumonia. And what the researchers said is that the vaccine is almost certainly killing more children than diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis prior to the vaccine because it was protecting them against the targeted illnesses, but it had  ruined their immune systems. They could not defend themselves against these other minor infections.

And nobody noticed for 30 years that is was the vaccinated children who were disproportionately dying.

And that’s the problem with not doing real placebo controlled trials.

None of the vaccines are subjected to true placebo controlled trials.  It is the only medical product that is exempt prior to licensure.

The DTP vaccine, when it was pulled in this country, was pulled because so many people were suing the drug companies.

Wyeth, which is now Pfizer, the primary manufacturer, they went to the Reagan Administration in 1986, and they said, “You need to give us full immunity from liability for all vaccines, or we’re getting out of the business.

“We’re losing $20 in downstream liability for every dollar we’re making in profits.”

And Reagan said to them, “Well, why don’t you make a vaccine safe?”

And they said, “Because vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.”

That’s the phrase they use, and that phrase is in the statute.

It’s also in the Bruesewitz Case, which is the Supreme Court decision upholding that statute.  

So anybody who tells you vaccines are safe and effective, the industry itself got immunity from liability by convincing the President and Congress that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe.

Rogan: The argument against that would obviously be: They’ve prevented disease that would have killed untold numbers of children.

Kennedy: Exactly. And that vaccine injuries are very rare. That is the argument that is used against them. And both of those arguments, in CDC’s own studies, have been severely challenged.

The CDC did a study in 2010. It was Harvard scientists who looked at one of the HMOs…and they were testing a machine counting system…

Fewer than one in a hundred vaccine injuries are ever reported. …

They developed a system of machine counting, so it doesn’t rely on voluntary reporting. 

What you do is look at all the vaccine records per population and all of the medical claims, the subsequent medical claims, and you do machine counting, cluster analysis.

And CDC had asked this team to design a machine counting system because their VAERS system was so heavily criticized by everybody. …Congress had told them you have to accurately count vaccine injuries, and they weren’t doing it.

So when they did it, when they actually looked, they found that it’s not one in a million. One in every 37 kids had potential vaccine claims.  

You can’t tell whether any of those claims were actually from the vaccine. It’s machine counting, so it’s statistical. But you can say that the number of injuries was much higher than anybody was admitting.

Then in the year 2000, CDC did a study with Johns Hopkins because there was this emerging claim that vaccines had saved millions and millions of lives around the world. …

This is the principle effort by CDC to actually verify that claim. They looked at the history of each vaccine and health claims.

There was this huge decline in mortalities from infectious disease that took place in the 20th century—an 80 percent drop in deaths from infectious disease. And what caused that?

Was it vaccines?

And what they said was, no. It had almost nothing to do with vaccines. The real drop happened because of better housing, sanitation, chlorine, sewage treatment, mainly nutrition.  Nutrition is absolutely critical to building immune systems.

What was really killing these children was malnutrition. It was the infectious disease that was kind of knocking them off at the end. But the real cause of death was malnutrition and collapsed immune system. And that is what the Guyer study showed.

This was the only time CDC ever looked at this. It was published in Pediatrics. It’s CDC and Johns Hopkins in the year 2000.

I believe the study is true, and it’s borne out by many, many others. …

They passed the Vaccine Act in 1986, and the Vaccine Act gave immunity from liability to all vaccine companies for any injury. No matter how negligent you are, no matter how reckless your conduct, no matter how toxic the ingredient, how shoddily tested or manufactured the product, no matter how grievous your injury, your vaccine company, you cannot be sued.

So this was a huge gift for this industry because the biggest cost for every medical product is downstream liabilities.

And all of a sudden, those have disappeared. You not only have taken away that cost, and incentivizing  production of many new vaccines, you’re also disincentivizing, you’re removing the incentive to make them safe because no matter how dangerous they are, they can’t be sued.

You may say, if they’re really dangerous, nobody’s going to buy them.

But the problem with that is, nobody has a choice. They not only got rid of the downstream liability, but they don’t have any advertising or marketing costs because the federal government is ordering …76 million kids to take the product a year.

IF you can get that on the schedule, it’s like printing a billion dollars for them. And so there was a gold rush.

And the other thing is they are exempt from pre-licensing testing. They don’t have to be tested. And they’re not.

I said this for many, many years: Not one of these 72 vaccines has ever been tested pre-licensing in a placebo controlled trial where you’re looking at vaccinated vs unvaccinated kids, looking for health outcomes. Never been done.

Tony Fauci was saying, he’s lying. He’s not telling the truth.  This is vaccine misinformation.

In 2016, Donald Trump asked me to run a vaccine safety commission. I agreed to do it. He then order Fauci and Collins to be with me … I had meetings with all these guys.

I actually went into that meeting with Fauci with three people. One was Del Bigtree, another one was Aaron Siri, the attorney. Another one was Lyn Redwood, who is a very, very famous nurse practitioner, public health official in Georgia. 

During that meeting there was a referee from the White House. I said to Fauci, I give kind of a lecture showing what we knew. I said to him in the middle of it—by the way, he’s known my family forever. My uncle was chair of the health committee, writing his salary every year….

I said to him, “Tony, you’ve been telling people I’m a liar when I say no vaccine has ever been,  none of the mandated  vaccines…none of them have ever been tested in a placebo-controlled trial safety test prior to licensing.”

And I said, “Can you show me one vaccine that has been subject to a safety test. Show me one study that shows that.

He made this show of looking through… They had brought in from NIH, this big tray full of file folders, and he made a show of looking through that at the time. He couldn’t find whatever he was looking for.

Then he said, “It’s back at NIH in Bethesda, and I’ll sent it to you.”

Well, he never did.

So Aaron and I sued him, sued HHS and said, “Show us one study that’s ever been done on pre-licensing safety testing for vaccines.”

After a year of stonewalling, they finally gave us a letter and said, “We don’t have any.”

They literally don’t have any.

So nobody knows what the risk profiles for these products are. So they’re telling people they avert more harm than they cause, but there’s no science behind that statement. It’s just a guess work.

Rogan: But it’s an amazingly effective narrative. And that narrative, the way it’s spread through this country. Like I said, it’s gotten me and I think it’s gotten a lot of people. And I think people are terrified of being called an anti-vaxxer. It’s a very dismissive pejorative, a very bad term. …

It’s kind of amazing what they’d done, especially in a world where we’re very aware of the side effects that were hidden from the public with other drugs.

Maybe it has to do with protecting children because good parents want to trust science and they want to think that medical science is the reason people live so well today, and a lot of that’s true.  But they want to think that it’s all connected.

So if they say you’re supposed to get 72 shots…

Kennedy: …You’re absolutely right about the opioids. There are many, many other examples, but the opioids is a good one because if anybody goes and looks at that Netflix documentary, Dopesick …

That documentary shows how all of these subtle forces that lead to agency capture and this corrupt collusion between the industry and the regulators.

It was the regulator who agreed, the FDA who agreed to put on the label it’s safe and effective and it’s not addictive….

You had the entire medical community who said, oh, we must be wrong because FDA says it’s safe and effective.

You can imagine if they did that for vaccines, and then you saw what they did in COVID. They had to continually change the goalposts.  .. And everybody would just go on with the next claim without ever saying, wait a minute, why should we trust you now? …

Rogan: But it seems to be the same pattern over and over again. It’s just bizarre that it takes so long to get the narrative out to people. When you get a corporation, any corporation, any group of people who can make money unchecked, it seems to be a normal human characteristic that they do that. When they’re unregulated or unchecked, when someone’s not watching them, or the people that are watching them are compromised, and then we’re literally funding media. So you’re funding all these shows


The vaccine schedule, immediately after they passed the Vaccine Act, exploded because all these companies were rushing to get new vaccines onto the schedule. Many for diseases that weren’t even casually contagious, like hepatitis B. You get hepatitis B from sharing needles or from going to a really seasoned prostitute or from homosexual compulsive behavior. …

Why would you give it to a one day old baby or a three hour old baby?...

Originally what happened was Merck and CDC designed this for prostitutes and male homosexuals, promiscuous male homosexuals, and they couldn’t sell it.

So all these crazy diseases, rotavirus, were put on the schedule and they starting seeing all this explosion in chronic disease, and particularly autism.

Congress said to EPA, what year did the autism epidemic begin?

And EPA is a captured agency, but it’s captured by the coal industry and the oil and the pesticide industry, but not by the Pharma, because it doesn’t regulate Pharma. So it actually did real science, and it said 1989 is the year the epidemic began. It’s a red line.

And 1989 was the year the vaccine schedule exploded. That doesn’t mean that’s a correlation, it does not mean causation, but it is something that should be looked at.

NIH decided to look at it because woman were saying it was the vaccine again and again and again and again and again and again.  

Women were coming with the same story: “I had a perfectly healthy two year old, exceeded all his miles stones. I gave them on their second birthday or 18th month wellness visit, the full battery of six or eight vaccines, and that child spiked a fever that night, has a seizure and over the next three months loses their language, loses their capacity to make eye contact, to finger point. Social interactions and language disappear.

And it happened so many times that NIH was saying, we got to look to see if it’s the vaccines. …

So CDC hired a Belgian epidemiologist named Thomas Verstraeten, and they opened up the Vaccine Safety Datalink, which is the biggest database for vaccines for HMOs.

All the top HMOs have all their records in there, so they have all your vaccination records and all your health claims, so you can do these kinds of cluster analyses.

Verstraeten went in there, and he looked at one thing: He looked at children who got the hepatitis B vaccine within their first month of life and compared those health outcomes in children who did not. In other words, children who got it after 30 days or didn’t get it at all. That was the second cohort.

What he found in his first run through the data is there was an 1135% greater or elevated risk for an autism diagnosis among the kids who’d gotten it in their first 30 days.

At that point, they knew what caused the autism epidemic because a relative risk, it’s called a relative risk of 11.35. A relative risk of two is considered proof of causation, as long as there’s biological plausibility.

The relative risk of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 20 years and getting lung cancer is ten. This was 11.35.

So there was a panic throughout the industry as people heard about this study.

CDC wanted to do a meeting with all big parjarams of the industry. And they didn’t want to do it on CDC campus because then they thought it would be subject to a Freedom of Information Law request. They wanted to do it, keep it secret.

So [in 2000] they found this retreat center, a Methodist retreat center in Norcross, Georgia called Simpsonwood, and they assembled, I think there was 72 people there, and they were from WHO, CDC, NIH, FDA, and all the vaccine companies and all the big academics—the people who basically develop vaccines in the academic institutions. They were all there.

And they spend the first day, they give them all a copy of the Verstraeten study, but they have to give it all back because they don’t want it out there.

And then they have a day of talking about it where they’re all saying, holy cow, this is real.  The lawyers are going to come after us. We’re all in trouble.

And then they spend the second day talking about how to hide it.

Rogan: How do you know this?

Kennedy: Because somebody made a recording of it. And I got a hold of the [286 pages of] transcripts, and I published excerpts from those transcripts in Rolling Stone [Deadly Immunity, 2005].

Anyone can go and read these now on our website. It’s called Simpsonwood. You can read through the whole things or you can read my Rolling Stone article.

When I read then I was like, I got to drop everything and do something about this. And I published this article in Rolling Stone and I was kind of shocked by just to power of the reaction against it. People coming after Rolling Stone and Salon which also published it, and were just bulldozed by these hate reactions. And then Salon, six years later—

There were four or five corrections in the article in the next week. All of those corrections were made by the editors of Salon and Rolling Stone.

And six years later, Salon, under pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, takes it down and says we found mistakes in it. But they never found mistakes in it. I’ve said repeatedly to them, show me one mistake in that published piece, show me one. 

And they have not been able to do it.

And they also forgot that the four mistakes that they found… were all made by them. They edited my 16,000 word piece down to a 3,000 word piece. And then they were doing that they made some errors.

So what you had after that is this explosion in chronic disease… In the 1960s when I was a kid, six percent of Americans had chronic disease.

 What do I mean by chronic disease? Basically three categories, plus obesity.

One: neurological disorders, ADD, ADHD, speech delay, language delay, tics, Tourette ’s syndrome. narcolepsy,  ASD, autism.

Autism went from one in 10,000 in my generation, it’s still one in 10,000…

In my kids’ age, now one in every 34 kids has autism. Half of those are full blown.

Rogan: What’s the conventional explanation for that?

Kennedy: There’s no real explanation. They try to say, well we’re just noticing it more, which is ridiculous because, first of all there’s all kinds of studies that say, really good studies like Irva Hertz-Picciotto’s. Very famous scientist, epidemiologist, statistician who was commissioned by the California State Legislature to answer that question. She’s at the MIND Institute at UC Davis.

And she came back and said, no, the epidemic is real. It’s not better diagnostics or changing diagnostic criteria.

Any real scientist now, even the big backers like Paul Offit, I don’t think even he will say that.

Nobody from CDC is actually going to stand up and say that. They certainly won’t debate the point.

But even more so, if it’s NOT AN EPIDEMIC, WHERE ARE THE ONE IN 34 sixty-nine year old men who are wearing helmets and are non-toilet trained?

If you’ve got autism, you live forever. It doesn’t affect life span. These kids are going to be around forever. But there’s nobody my age who looks like that.

So if it was really better recognition, you’d see it in every ago group, not just in children.

NOT ONLY THAT, BUT IT CHANGES EVERY YEAR. IT GETS WORSE AND WORSE EVERY YEAR. So they can’t keep saying, oh, we’re just noticing it for the first time.

Rogan: How does it get worse every year?

Kennedy: The CDC releases new data…it’s the monitoring system. There’s been all kinds of scandals with that because the CDC tries to manipulate… and there’s all kinds of whistleblowers from different states who say that they’re pressured to not report cases and that kind of thing.

But the CDC releases new data every year. Every year it gets worse. 

It’s now one in every 22 boys.

Rogan: Has the rate of vaccinations changed?

Kennedy: The rates of vaccinations have gone up.

Mercury has been removed from a lot of the vaccines, but there’s aluminum in those vaccines which operates on the same biological pathways and does the same kind of damage. It’s extremely neurotoxic. And then there’s other things, lots of other toxins in the vaccines.

There’s hundreds and hundreds of scientific studies and nobody ever reports them.

I did a book in which I had 450 studies that are digested in that book, that I summarize and cite and 1,400 references. And everybody will say, there’s  no study that shows autism and vaccines are connected. Oh, that’s crazy.

That’s people who are not looking at science.

Rogan: But they want to say that.

Kennedy: It’s part of their religion. And the heretics have to be burned at the stake, have to be humiliated, silenced, and destroyed. …

The same is true in science. You don’t trust the experts. …

The second category is autoimmune diseases. All those neurological diseases exploded in 1989, as I say. Autism exponentially explodes

The autoimmune diseases like diabetes juvenile diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, Lupus, Crone’s Disease—I didn’t know any of these diseases when I was a kid

They were so rare. I didn’t know anybody who had peanut allergy

Why do five of my seven kids have allergies?

And of course we know why. Aluminum adjuvants give you allergies. They’re designed create a hyper immune response to foreign particles.

And the last category is the allergic diseases: peanuts allergies, food allergies, eczema.

I never knew anybody with eczema when I was a kid. Asthma, I knew people with asthma. It wasn’t one in every four black kids, like it is today.

We went from six percent of Americans having chronic disease, by 1986, we’re starting to add the vaccines, 11.8 percent of kids now, so it’s doubled.

2006, 54 percent. These are kids who are permanently disabled. They have to be on medication their whole lives.

We have the sickest generation in history. There’s no other country in the world that has this kind of chronic disease epidemic. Of course this is one of the reasons we had the highest death rate during COVID. Because we have the highest chronic disease burden in the world.

It’s not just the vaccines, and I have never said that.  Our children are swimming around in a toxic soup.

What we can say, most of it started in 1989. There’s a finite number of culprits you can point to and say—it has to come from a toxic exposure because genes don’t cause epidemics. They can provide a vulnerability, but you need a toxic exposure.

 But what is it?

Revoke the Papal Bulls
A View-from-the-Shore Analysis of Vatican’s 30 Mar 2023 Statement on Doctrine of Discovery

In response to the Papul Bulls issued
530 years ago today and tomorrow (3 and 4 May 1493):


Indigenous Law Institute 
and Original Nations Advocates

“Revoke the Papal Bulls”

A View-from-the-Shore Analysis of the
Vatican’s 30 March 2023 Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery

by Steven Newcomb (Shawnee/Lenape)

Source: Original Free Nations


The Context

Let us set the context for this discussion. The context begins with the free existence of our Native nations and peoples, extending back to the beginning of our time through our oral histories and traditions, contrasted with the system of domination that was carried by ship across the ocean and imposed on everyone and everything. From that starting point we end up with a non-Christian view-from-the-shore with our Ancestors looking out at the invading ships sailing from Western Christendom, and a view-from-the-ship perspective, with the colonizers moving toward our Ancestors with the intention of establishing the Christian empire’s system of domination where it did not yet exist. Below we examine the recent Vatican Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery with a view-from-the-shore perspective, while understanding that the Vatican officials wrote their statement with a view-from-the-ship (church) perspective.

The Indigenous Law Institute

In 1992, Birgil Kills Straight (1940-2019) (a traditional Head Man and ceremonial leader of the Oglala Lakota Nation) and I founded the Indigenous Law Institute (ILI), and began a global campaign regarding the so-called “Doctrine of Discovery.” We began our efforts by calling upon then Pope John Paul II (JPII) to formally revoke a 1493 papal bull, Inter Caetera, which Pope Alexander VI issued shortly after Columbus returned to Western Christendom from the Bahamas. In 1993, we presented our call for a revocation of the papal bull of May 4, 1493 to the Parliament of the World’s Religions, and assisted with the drafting of a resolution titled, “Declaration of Vision: Toward the Next 500 Years.”

Guided by our deep appreciation of Birgil’s wisdom and mentorship, we continue with our efforts, and we are maintaining our call for the Holy See to revoke the papal bull of May 4, 1493. We carry on our global campaign against the patterns of domination unleashed on the planet by those ancient Vatican documents, which have been and continue to be imposed on Indigenous nations and peoples and incorporated into U.S. federal Indian law and Canadian Indian law.

After thirty years of effort and momentum, the Vatican Dicastery for Culture and Education, and the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, issued a “Joint Statement” on the “Doctrine of Discovery.” The Vatican stopped short of a revocation of the May 4th papal bull, issuing instead a “repudiation of the doctrine of discovery.” The following analysis is intended to take a closer look at the Vatican statement, while explaining some usually overlooked connections between the Bible and what we prefer to call the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and Domination.

Matthew 28:18-20 in the Bible Expresses a Mandate to Baptize All Nations. That, and the Mandate of Genesis 1:28, are Traced to a Number of Papal Bulls Issued During the Fifteenth Century

The opening sentence of the Vatican’s March 30th statement refers to a “mandate received from Christ.” That mandate is sometimes known as “the faith-sharing mandate” and “The Great Commission.” In that biblical passage from the Vulgate Bible (Matthew 28:18-20), Jesus is quoted as saying, “All authority [potestas, in Latin] in heaven and on earth has been given to me [Jesus Christ]. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (emphasis added) In other words, baptize them and make them followers of Christ. This has been described as “the Lord’s world-wide commission.” (A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, Ed., Gore, Goudge, and Guillaume, 1928, p. 204)

Some Vatican officials might say that the reference to a “mandate” in the March 30th Statement is not “reducible to a single text” from the Bible, otherwise that specific text would have been quoted. They might say that the reference to “the mandate received from Christ” is “a general summary mandate that reflects Scripture, as well as the evolving understanding of the Church’s mission.” Nonetheless, the word “mandate” is accurately interpreted as being inclusive of what has been expressed as the “world-wide commission” found in Matthew 28:18-20.

In the context of a world-wide mandate, the phrase “Go therefore” is accurately interpreted as, “to move forward and proceed on a course or path toward the fulfillment of an intention or a destination.” In order to fulfill the biblical mandate (intention) to make disciples of all nations, baptize them, and teach them to obey (be properly subordinate to) the commandments of Jesus, certain popes understood that it was necessary to identify or discover the distant and remote location of all non-Christian nations of the world.

No pope was going to set sail on a voyage of “discovery.” However, certain popes did issue documents purporting to give or grant Christian monarchs the divine right to “discover and conquer” the distant lands of infidels. This pattern demonstrates how the Catholic Church’s Great Commission, based on Jesus Christ’s directive to make disciples of, and baptize all nations, logically resulted in a papally authorized effort to “discover,” “conquer,” and establish domination over distant non-Christian nations and their lands.

Pope Francis’s Environmental Encyclical, Laudato Si

In 2015, Pope Francis issued his Encyclical Laudato Si, which is regarded as the most comprehensive papal statement on the environment. Although we only have space to reference it in passing, we do want to acknowledge the Encyclical as being applicable to this discussion. Laudato Si begins:

  1. “LAUDATO SI’, mi’ Signore” – “Praise be to you, my Lord”.In the words of this beautiful canticle, Saint Francis of Assisi reminds us that our common home is like a sister with whom we share our life and a beautiful mother who opens her arms to embrace us. “Praise be to you, my Lord, through our Sister, Mother Earth, who sustains and governs us, and who produces various fruit with coloured flowers and herbs”.
  2. This sister [the Earth] now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will. The violence present in our hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the water, in the air and in all forms of life. [emphasis added]

While the above style of writing sounds positive, it appropriates without attribution the “Indigenous” expression “Mother Earth,” and the words of the above passage lack both historical context and any acknowledgment of Indigenous peoples. Use of the third person “we” and “our” is ambiguous. To whom do “we” and “our” refer? No doubt the Holy See has used those words with the intention of referencing humanity as a whole. The document is written in a manner that implies that the Vatican and the Holy See have always subscribed to St. Francis of Assissi’s view of nature.

What seems odd about the above use of language by Pope Francis, however, is that it fails to acknowledge the worldviews and perspectives of Indigenous peoples, and the fact that they do not consider themselves to be “lords and masters” of the Earth, or consider themselves entitled to “plunder” the Earth at will. These are Christian European conceptions that include the Vatican papal bulls of the fifteenth century (three of which we quote below), and the doctrine of Christian discovery and domination.

The Book of Genesis in Laudato Si

Chapter Two of Laudato Si, is titled “The Gospel of Creation.” There we find the subheading: “II. The Wisdom of the Biblical Accounts.” At paragraph 66, Pope Francis states:

“The creation accounts in the book of Genesis contain . . . profound teachings about human existence and its historical reality.” Pope Francis says that “human life is grounded in three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbour and with the earth itself.” He further says that “three vital relationships have been broken, both outwardly and within us.” He continues:

This rupture is sin. The harmony between the Creator, humanity and creation as a whole was disrupted by our presuming to take the place of God and refusing to acknowledge our creaturely limitations. This in turn distorted our mandate to “have dominion” over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), to “till it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). As a result, the originally harmonious relationship between human beings and nature became conflictual (cf. Gen 3:17-19).

Harmony is defined in Webster’s as, “agreement between the parts of a design or composition giving unity of effect or an aesthetically pleasing whole.” (emphasis added) Webster’s also defines harmony as, “A systematic arrangement of parallel passages, as of the Gospels, to show their agreement.” The opposite of “agreement” is “disagreement,” “a state being at variance.” To disagree is “to fail to agree, to differ.” Webster’s defines “genesis” as, “to be born,” and “The coming into being of anything,” as well as, and in a biblical context, “a first account of creation.”

In a sense, Genesis of the Bible forms a premise of their story of creation and of the Christian European universe. Strangely, however, part of the mandate from God which is portrayed in Genesis 1:28—to subdue and dominate—assumes a position of hostility, enmity, and opposition toward the Earth, and, by implication, and eventually, toward the Indigenous nations and peoples of the Earth. The term subdue suggests “to conquer and bring into subjection” which are terms of war.

Pope Francis’s claim in Laudato Si that there was an original “harmony” between “the Creator, humanity and creation as a whole” is contradicted by the Latin words in Gen. 1:28 found in the Vulgate Bible: “. . .Crescite et multiplicamini [grow and multiply] et replete terram [and fill the earth], et subicite eam [and subdue [i.e., dominate] it], et dominamini piscibus maris [i.e., dominate the fish of the sea], et volatilibus caeli [and the birds of the air] et universis animantibus [and all living things], quae moventur [which are moving] super terram [above ground].”

Laudato Si refers to Genesis 1:28 as a “mandate.” Pope Francis says that humans “presuming to take the place of God and refusing to acknowledge our creaturely limitations” was what “distorted our mandate [from God] to ‘have dominion’ over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), to ‘till it and keep it’ (Gen 2:15).” To distort is “to wrest from the true meaning; to pervert.” He appears to be saying that the mandate to “subdue” and “dominate” the Earth is a mandate to have a “harmonious relationship” with the Earth. Laudato Si suggests that this “correct” interpretation of “subdue” and “dominate” has wrongly portrayed humans as being in conflict with the Earth.

However, the Latin words for mandate (imperatum, iussum, and mandatum) definitely convey a sense of domination and conflict, as do the words “subicite” and “dominamini” from Genesis 1:28 in the Latin Vulgate Bible. It thus makes no sense to conceive of a God-given mandate to subdue and dominate the Earth (and “all living things which are moving above ground”) as creating a harmonious relationship between humans and nature. Given God’s command to subdue and dominate the Earth (“nature”), in that context their biblical story of creation portrays humanity as being in conflict with the Earth, and by extension in conflict with the Indigenous peoples of the Earth. We see this manifested in the history of Christendom invading war against non-Christian nations and peoples and waging war against them.

The Collective Punishment and Domination of Women in the Bible

In Chapter Two, Laudato Si cites Genesis 3:17-19, thereby conveniently avoiding Genesis 3:16, according to which “a loving God” condemns Eve, and, by extension, all women after her, to an everlasting collective punishment: “To the woman also he [God] said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions; in sorrow shall thou bring forth children, and, thou shalt be under thy husband’s power [“potestate” in Latin], and he shall have dominion [dominabitur, in Latin (i.e., domination)] over thee.”

All across the planet women have suffered and continue to suffer from the application of this kind of theologically backed thinking and behavior toward them, based on the belief that God condemned womankind to existing “under” the potestate (power) of the husband and subject to the idea that “the husband shall have dominion [domination] over his wife” as ordained by God. As a present-day example, think of the murdered and missing Indigenous women in both Canada and the United States.

Genesis 3:16 quoted above, and 3:17-19 quoted below, tell us that the deity of Genesis does not behave in the dignified manner of an Indigenous Elder, but instead judges and condemns, for the God of the Bible is depicted as saying to Adam: “Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the earth in thy work; with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life.” (emphasis added) Genesis 3:18 states: “Thorns and thistles shall it [the earth] bring forth to thee; and thou eat the herbs of the earth.” And, at Genesis 3:19, we find: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread till thou return to earth, out of which thou was taken: for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return.”

Paragraph 66 of Laudato Si refers to “sin” as being “manifest in all its destructive power in wars, the various forms of violence and abuse, the abandonment of the most vulnerable, and attacks on nature.” The Holy See produced documents repeatedly during the fifteenth century that authorized and encouraged “wars, [and] various forms of violence and abuse,” as well “attacks on nature.” It’s March 30th statement fails to acknowledge this.

Paragraph 67 states “We are not God. The earth was here before us and it has been given to us.” Laudato Si continues: “This allows us to respond to the charge that Judeo-Christian thinking, on the basis of the Genesis account which grants man ‘dominion’ over the earth (cf. Gen 1:28), has encouraged the unbridled exploitation of nature by painting him as domineering and destructive by nature. This is not a correct interpretation of the Bible as understood by the Church,” says the Pope. Laudato Si continues:

Although it is true that we Christians have at times incorrectly interpreted the Scriptures, nowadays we must forcefully reject the notion that our being created in God’s image and given dominion over the earth justifies absolute domination over other creatures. [emphasis added]

“Nowadays” is the key word. This is evidently an updated way of understanding the Bible. However, it is not the interpretation of the Bible that was used as the basis of the papal decrees from the fifteenth century, which are traced to the story of the Chosen People and the Promised Land.

The Chosen People Promised Land Narrative Used Against Indigenous Nations and Peoples

At Genesis 15:7 we find “the Lord” [Dominus, “he who has dominated” in Latin] telling Abram “I am the Lord who brought thee out from Ur of the Chaldees, to gibe thee this land, and that thou mightest possess it.” The deity does not merely give the land to Abram; he is also giving the Indigenous peoples who were already living in the “promised land” of Canaan. Thus the Old Testament deity says to Abram (who becomes Abraham):

That day God made a covenant with Abram, saying: To thy seed will I give this land, from the river of Egypt even to the great river Euphrates.

The grammatical colon indicates that a list of items is to follow, and, in this case, the items listed are the Indigenous peoples living in the land the Old Testament deity is promising to Abram: “The Cineans and Cenezites, the Cedmonites, And the Hethites, and the Pherezites, the Raphaim also, And the Amorrhites, and the Chanaanits, and the Gergesites, and the Jebusites.” (King James version: “The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites, And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims, And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”)

Abram and his descendants are to receive from the deity the land and the Indigenous peoples, as it states in Psalms 2:8: “Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession.” (King James version: “Ask of me and I shall give to thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.”) Given that an inheritance is a form of property, which has been defined as “the first establishment of socially approved physical domination over some part of the natural world” (Liebman and Haar, Property and Law, 1986, p. 1), Psalms 2:8 presupposes a right of domination [“property”] over the Indigenous peoples.

Additionally, in Deuteronomy 20:10-18, the Old Testament deity commands the Hebrew soldiers to apply a genocidal logic and behavior toward the Indigenous peoples living in the lands the deity promised them:

But of those cities that shall be given thee, thou shalt suffer none at all to live: But shalt kill them with the edge of the sword, to wit, the Hethite, and the Amorrhite, and the Chanaanite, the Pherezite, and the Hevite, and the Jebusite, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. [emphasis added]

King James version: But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perrizites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God has commanded thee. [emphasis added]

This command to “utterly destroy” and thereby nullify Indigenous peoples is also a biblical mandate. During the fifteenth, sixteenth, and later centuries, the Holy See and monarchies of Christendom, lifted the Old Testament narrative of the chosen people and the promised land from the geographical area of the Middle East and began carrying it over, metaphorically, to the rest of the globe, particularly to the western hemisphere. Key biblical passages provided a mental basis for the globalization of the Chosen People-Promised Land model of thought and behavior during the so-called Age of Discovery.

Attitudes from the Old Testament covenant tradition have had a tremendous ability to persist in Christian European thought over time. In 1557, for example, four and a half centuries after the sacking of Jerusalem in 1099 A.D. during the First Crusade, Pedro de Santander, an official of the Catholic Church, advocated for Philip II, emperor of Spain, to apply the Old Testament conceptual tradition of the Promised Land in his treatment of the Native peoples in Florida:

This is the Land of Promise, possessed by idolator, the Amorite, Amulekite, Moabit, Canaanite. This is the land promised by the Eternal Father to the Faithful, since we are commanded by God in the Holy Scripture to take it from them, being idolators, and, by reason of their idolatry and sin, to put them all to the knife, leaving no living thing save maidens and children, their cities robbed and sacked, their walls and houses leveled to the earth.

The Right of Discovery

In his 1888 article, “Right of Discovery,” B. A. Hinsdale elaborated on this Catholic way of thinking that considered it acceptable to genocidally nullify or negate the original nations and peoples of the continent. He explains the emergence of the category “nullus,” which, he says, Francis Lieber traced to the Catholic Church. As Hinsdale explains:

Practically, discovery, when consummated [by possession], was conquest [domination], but theoretically, it was something very different. An enemy overcome in battle was nullus according to the Roman law, but another definition, and one more consonant [in keeping] with the temper of the times, was now adopted. This definition was supplied by the Roman [Catholic] Church.

The new definition of nullus was, a heathen, pagan, infidel, or unbaptized person. “Paganism, which meant being unbaptized,” says Dr. [Francis] Lieberdeprived the individual of those rights which a true jural morality considers inherent in each human being.” The same writer [Dr. Lieber] also states that the Right of Discovery is founded “on the principle that what belongs to no one [may] be appropriated by the finder,” but this principle becomes effectual only when supplemented by the Church definition of nullus. That definition supplied the lacking premise in the demonstration. Grant that res nullius is the property of the finder; that an infidel is nullus; that the American savage is an infidel, and the argument is complete. That the Church, one of whose great duties is to protect the weak and helpless, should have supplied one-half the logic that justified the spoilation and enslavement of the heathen, is one of the anomalies of history.

In his essay, Hinsdale follows Francis Lieber’s lead in making a direct connection between the Roman law concept of res nullius, the Catholic Church’s religious concept of nullus (notice the different spelling of the two terms), and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Johnson v. McIntosh ruling of 1823, which distinguishes between “Christian people” and “natives, who were heathens”. Nullus is the basis of what we are able to accurately term the Doctrine of Pagan or Infidel Non-Existence. It isn’t that the peoples don’t exist physically. It’s that the intellectuals of the Christian world mentally refused to allow non-Christian peoples to be regarded as possessing a right of domination (i.e., “sovereignty,” “property,” and “dominion”) that could enable them to block and protect themselves against the Christian monarchs’ claim of a right of domination against them.

A number of Catholic theologians such as Bartolome de Las Casas, Juan Sepulveda,  and Francisco de Vitoria followed these lines of argumentation in their leading positions in the intellectual world of Western Christendom during the so-called Age of Discovery. In his book Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (2004), international law scholar Antony Anghie points out that Francisco de Vitoria, for example, “based his conclusion that the Indians are not sovereign on the simple assertion that they are pagans.” Anghie further says:

The distinction [that Vitoria made] between the Indians and the Spanish was . . . emphatic and well developed. Indeed, in the final analysis, the most unequivocal proposition Vitoria advances as to the character of the sovereign is that the sovereign, the entity empowered to wage a just war, cannot, by definition, be an Indian.

Anghie continues:

Since the Indians are by definition incapable of waging a just war, they exist within the Vitorian framework only as violators of the law. [emphasis added] The normal principles of just war, which would prohibit the enslaving of women and children, do not apply in the case of the pagan Indians:

Anghie then quotes Vitoria as follows:

And so when the war is at that pass [point] that the indiscriminate spoilation [plunder] of all enemy-subjects alike and the seizure of all their goods are justifiable, then it is also justifiable to carry all enemy-subjects off into captivity, whether they be guilty or guiltless. And inasmuch as war with pagans is of this type, seeing that it is perpetual and they can never make amends for the wrongs and damages they have wrought, it is indubitably lawful to carry off both the children and women of the Saracens into captivity and slavery. [p. 27]

This Christian “logic” of treating non-Christians as enemies provides a rationale for the theft and kidnapping of Indian children from their families, and wrongfully forcing them into deadly boarding “schools” and residential “schools” as part of the genocidal process of intentionally destroying whatever holds a People together (e.g., their language, culture, and spiritual traditions) as a distinct nation. Anghie continues: “Once fault is established” [based on an imposed framework of domination] “as the above passage suggests, the war waged against the Indians is, in Vitoria’s phraseology, ‘perpetual’. Similarly, in his discussion of whether it is lawful and expedient to kill all the guilty, Vitoria suggests that this may be necessary because of the unique case of the unredeemable Indian. Vitoria further states:

and this is especially the case [in a war] against the unbeliever, from whom it is useless ever to hope for a just peace on any terms. And as the only remedy is to destroy all of them who can bear arms against us, provided they have already been in fault. [emphasis added]

Anghie sums up by saying: “These conclusions stand in curious juxtaposition to other parts of Vitoria’s work, where he emphasizes the humanity of the Indians.” And, “it is the Indian who acts as the object against which the powers of sovereignty [domination] may be exercised in the most extreme ways.” This mentality can be traced into U.S. federal Indian law and policy, such as the doctrine of the plenary power of Congress.

A Hypothetical Scenario

In a spirit of historical truth-telling, Pope Francis could have stated the following in Laudato Si: “A number of my predecessors, during the fifteenth century, supported Christian monarchs to view themselves as ‘lords and masters’, whom we believe, were entitled, with the support of the Divine Majesty, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy See, to plunder the Earth, and the Indigenous peoples of the Earth.”

Pope Francis would have exhibited tremendous courageous if he had stated: “In the papal bull Romanus Pontifex of 1455, for example, we find the Holy See’s support for the belief in a divine entitlement to plunder the Earth, and establish domination over the Indigenous peoples of the Earth.”

Some Text from Romanus Pontifex

The connection between Romanus Pontifex, Genesis 1:28, Genesis 15:7, Matthew 28:18-20,2:8, Psalms:2:8 and other biblical passages contradicts Point 6 of the Vatican’s March 30th statement, “The ‘doctrine of discovery’ is not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church.” Given that Matthew 28:18-20 is one of the central teachings of the Catholic Church, and given that a fulfillment of Matthew 28:18-20 logically requires that the location of all distant non-Christian nations be identified, it is nonsensical and farcical for the Vatican to assert that the claimed right of discovery is not part of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

After all, Jesus Christ’s mandate to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations and baptize them” frames the Christian teaching to go forth to carry out Christ’s “mandate.” From within the Christian worldview, Christ’s mandate creates the claimed right to carry out the mandate. The opening of Romanus Pontifex helps to illustrate this point:

Nicholas, bishop, servant of the servants of God. For a perpetual remembrance. The Roman pontiff, successor of [St. Peter] the key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom and vicar of Christ, contemplating with a father’s mind all the several climes [regions] of the world and the characteristics of all the nations [emphasis added] dwelling in them [those regions] and seeking and desiring the [Christian] salvation [through the baptism and obedience] of all [infidel nations]. . . [European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States and Its Dependencies to 1648, 1917, pp. 20-21]

The phrase “all the nations” in the bull Romanus Pontifex matches the phrase “all nations” in Matthew 28. In order to make disciples of “all nations” and to baptize them, it is first necessary to identify (“discover”) the geographical location of those nations, so that a right of Christian domination can be asserted over and against them.

More Evidence of the Connection Between Matthew 28:18-20, the Papal Bull Romanus Pontifex, and the Theology of Domination

Romanus Pontifex continues: The Roman pontiff “wholesomely ordains and disposes [gives,] . . . [after] careful deliberation [upon] those things which he [the pontiff] sees will be agreeable to the Divine Majesty [i.e., God] and by [means of] which he [the pontiff] may bring the [infidel] sheep entrusted to him by God into the single divine fold, and may acquire for them the reward of eternal felicity [joy], and obtain pardon for their souls.” [European Treaties, p. 21]

The view that the pope is referring to “infidel” sheep is illustrated by a section of the book Kings Or People: Power and the Mandate to Rule (1978, p. 254), by Reinhard Bendix, where we find reference to a papal bull issued one year prior to Romanus Pontifex: “The papal bull of 1454 granted Prince Henry the Navigator (1394-1460) ‘the right, total and absolute, to invade, conquer, and subject all the countries which are under the rule of the enemies of Christ,’ adding the missionary charge that these ‘perfidious enemies of Christ should be brought into the Catholic fold’.”

Lyle N. McAlister, in Spain and Portugal in the New World (1984), explains the rationale behind the papal bulls of 1452 and 1454, as it was espoused by Cardinal Henry of Susa (d. 1271), better known as Hostiensis:

When Christ came into the world, Hostiensis declared, temporal as well as spiritual lordship over all its peoples passed immediately to Him. This faculty he transmitted to His legitimate successors, the bishops of Rome, who came to be called popes. Roman pontiffs, in turn, could delegate lordship over non-Christian lands to a Christian prince, thus conveying a just title to such lands, and, if the inhabitants resisted, a just war could be waged against the recalcitrants. [p. 52]

In Romanus Pontifex, Pope Nicholas V says he has deliberated carefully upon those things which he believes would be agreeable to God (the Divine Majesty), and by means of which he, as pontiff, may successfully bring the infidel sheep entrusted to him by God into the single divine fold, and thereby acquire for them the reward of the Catholic faith and Christian religion. As we shall see below, this is to be carried out by vanquishing and subjecting the infidels. The bull Romanus Pontifex continues:

This [effort to bring the sheep entrusted to us. . . into the single divine fold] . . . will more certainly come to pass, through the aid of the Lord [Domino in Latin], if we [the pontiff] bestow suitable favors and special graces on those Catholic kings and princes, who . . . not only restrain the savage excesses of the Saracens and of other infidels . . . but also vanquish [crush] them [the infidels] and their kingdoms and habitations, though situated in the remotest parts [of the world] unknown to us, and subject [dominate] them to their [the monarchs’] own temporal dominion [domination], sparing no labor and expense, in order that those kings and princes, relieved of all obstacles, may be the more animated to the prosecution of so salutary and laudable work [of evangelism]. [emphasis added]

The language from Romanus Pontifex illustrates the connection between “the doctrine of Christian discovery” and the Theology of Domination. “Discover” refers to the sailing expeditions to identify what Pope Nicholas V called those “remote parts of the world” where non-Christian peoples (“infidels”) were living and where Christian domination had not yet been imposed. The pope’s language expresses an intention to “subject” the infidels to the temporal domination (“dominio” in the Latin text) of the Portuguese monarchy. The language of Romanus Pontifex provides strong evidence that the Holy See at that time believed that the doctrine of Christian discovery and domination was intrinsic to “the teaching of the Catholic Church.”

Additional Content from the Vatican’s March 30th Statement on the Doctrine of Discovery

The Vatican’s March 30th statement claims that the “mandate received from Christ” causes the Catholic Church to strive to promote “universal fraternity and respect for the dignity of every human being.” Again, no historical context for the statement is provided. The statement says “the Popes” have worked to uphold that mandate by condemning “acts of violence, oppression, social injustice and slavery, including those committed against indigenous peoples.”

The phrase “the Popes have condemned acts of” makes it seem as if all popes throughout the history of the Catholic Church have condemned such acts. The exception to this assertion would be any popes who encouraged Christians to commit any acts of violence and oppression, slavery and social injustice against non-Christian nations and peoples. Pope Nicholas V and his documents Dum Diversas and Romanus Pontifex are glaring examples of such as exception.

The Vatican’s implied claim that all popes in the history of the Church condemned acts of “violence, oppression, social injustice and slavery” is patently ridiculous and demonstrably false given Nicholas’s papal directive to King Alfonso V of Portugal in Romanus Pontifex. In fact, by using language from the 1452 papal bull Dum Diversas, Nicholas V exhorted the Portuguese king to send his representatives to the western coast of Africa in order “to invade, capture, vanquish, and subdue” all non-Christians, “to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery” and “take away all their possessions and property.”

In the aforementioned Kings or People, Reinhold Bendix continues: “Portugal had pioneered this expansion [of domination], but soon the other European powers vied with Portugal for commercial supremacy on the high seas and in overseas settlement. Westward expansion [of domination] to the Americas also began from the Iberian peninsula.” (p. 255) Thus we see evidence of papal advocacy in favor of acts of violence, oppression, injustice, and slavery against non-Christian nations and peoples. The papal bulls of 1493 also express patterns of domination that were carried to the Western Hemisphere and to other areas of the globe, as illustrated in our discussion of Point 6 below.

Point 3 of the Vatican statement says: “[R]espect for the facts of history demands an acknowledgment of the human weakness and failings of Christ’s disciples in every generation. Many Christians have committed evil acts against indigenous peoples for which recent Popes have asked forgiveness on numerous occasions.” The category “Christ’s disciples” includes the popes who called for the domination of non-Christian Indigenous nations and peoples. It is a massive understatement to say that the language directing Christian monarchs to establish domination over non-Christians is merely evidence of “human weakness” and “failings.”

Point 4 of the Vatican statement reads: “In our own day, a renewed dialogue with indigenous peoples, especially with those [indigenous people] who profess the Catholic Faith, has helped the Church to understand better their [indigenous] values and cultures. With their help, the Church has acquired a greater awareness of their sufferings, past and present, due to the [papally sanctioned] expropriation [domination] of their lands, which they consider a sacred gift from God and their ancestors…” In contrast to our insertion of clarifying words here, the Vatican statement does not acknowledge that some popes sanctioned the destruction, plunder, and dispossession of Indigenous peoples and their lands.

Point 4 refers to the “sufferings” of Indigenous peoples, resulting from “policies of forced assimilation [domination], promoted by governmental authorities of the time, [policies which were] intended to eliminate their indigenous cultures” [and to genocidally eliminate the indigenous peoples themselves]. Point 4 continues: “As Pope Francis has emphasized, their [Indigenous peoples’] sufferings [brought about by the language of the Vatican papal bulls issued over the course of generations,] constitute a powerful summons to [the Church to] abandon the colonizing mentality and to walk with them side by side, in mutual respect and dialogue, recognizing the rights and cultural values of all individuals and peoples.”

The lack of acknowledgment of Vatican accountability and the degree of denial exhibited in the Vatican’s March 30th statement does not signal a willingness to be explicit about the consequences of the “colonizing mentality” that the Vatican now says needs to be “abandoned,” after a massive accumulation of wealth and power. The Vatican Statement goes on to say: “It is in this context of listening to indigenous peoples that the Church has heard the importance of addressing the concept referred to as the doctrine of discovery.”

As noted above, since 1992 the Indigenous Law Institute has communicated with priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and with three popes by letter, and with Pope Francis in person, about the idea-patterns and behavioral patterns of domination created by the papal bulls of the fifteenth century. But the Vatican has failed to take seriously and explicitly acknowledge the central and crucial aspect of our analysis. The Vatican claims their statement is an effort to “walk with” indigenous peoples “side by side,” in “mutual respect and dialogue.” Yet the Vatican has declined to adopt Steven Newcomb’s well-documented terminology of domination in its March 30 statement even one time.

Point 4 ends by stating: “In this regard, the Church is committed to accompany indigenous peoples and to foster efforts aimed at promoting reconciliation and healing.” Note that the word “reconciliation” is a term of art in Catholic theology. It refers to a ceremony of restoration of a person’s relationship with the Church. It implies that there was an original beneficial relationship between a person and the Church that can be restored. By using that word in its statement, the Vatican is implying that the invading colonizers had a beneficial relationship with the original nations that fell apart and needs to be “restored.” But authentic healing must be premised on a candid reckoning with past patterns of domination and destruction in the papal bulls which continue to afflict us in the present.

Point 5 of the Vatican statement reads: “It in this context of listening to indigenous peoples that the Church has heard the importance of addressing the concept referred to as the ‘doctrine of discovery’.” Notice how the Vatican continues to make it seem as if the concept of “discovery” is the important issue that Indigenous nations and peoples have been calling for the Holy See to address. In actuality, what we have been wanting to discuss and address with the Vatican is the claim of a right of domination expressed in the Vatican papal bulls that has been extended throughout the world.

The Vatican’s statement attempts to draw the reader’s attention away from the Holy See with the following words: “The legal concept of ‘discovery’ was debated by colonial powers from the sixteenth century onward and found particular expression in the nineteenth century jurisprudence of courts in several countries . . .” A discerning eye will notice that this focus on the sixteenth century avoids the fifteenth century, which is when the papal bulls in question were issued that sanctioned what happened in the sixteenth. This makes it seem as if the Catholic Church was not one of the “colonial powers.” Additionally, it was Catholic theologians who debated the significance of the Native identity.

Point 6 of the statement begins: “The ‘doctrine of discovery’ is not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church.” This assertion has been partly dealt with above at the outset of this analysis, and in the paragraph above. Let us now add some text from the papal bull Inter Caetera issued by Pope Alexander VI, dated May 4, 1493 to show the theme of domination found in other papal bulls:

Among other works well pleasing to the Divine Majesty [God] and cherished of our heart, this assuredly ranks highest, that in our times especially the Catholic faith and Christian religion be exalted and be everywhere increased and spread, that the health of souls be cared for [through baptism] and that barbarous nations be overthrown [forced under domination] and brought to the faith itself. . . . [W]e therefore are rightly led, and hold it as our duty, to grant you . . . those things whereby . . . you may be enabled for the honor of God and the spread of the Christian rule [domination] to carry forward your holy and praiseworthy purpose so pleasing to immortal God.

We have indeed learned that you . . for a long time had intended to seek out and discover certain islands and mainlands remote and unknown and not hitherto discovered by others, to the end that you might bring to the worship of our Redeemer and the profession of the Catholic faith their residents and inhabitants . . .[Y]ou have purposed with the favor of [God’s] divine clemency to bring under your sway [domination] the said mainlands and islands with their residents and inhabitants and to bring them to the Catholic faith. Commending in the Lord this your holy and praiseworthy purpose, and desirous that it be duly accomplished, and that the name of our Savior be carried into those regions, we exhort you very earnestly to the Lord and by your reception of holy baptism, whereby you are bound by our apostolic commands, and by the bowels of the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, enjoin strictly, that . . . you purpose also . . . to lead the people dwelling in those islands and countries to embrace the Christian religion. . . [W]e, of our own accord, . . . out of the fullness of our apostolic power, by the Authority of Almighty God conferred upon us in blessed Peter and of the vicarship of Jesus Christ, which we hold on earth, do by tenor of these presents,  . . . give, grant, and assign to you and your heirs and successors, kings of Castile and Leon, forever, together with all their dominions, cities, camps, places, and villages, with all rights, jurisdictions, and appurtenances, all islands and mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered. . . [European Treaties, 1917, pp. 75-77]

Point 6 of the Vatican statement asserts: “Historical research clearly demonstrates that the papal documents in question, written in a specific historical period and linked to political questions, have never been considered expressions of the Catholic faith. At the same time, the Church acknowledges that these papal bulls did not adequately reflect the equal dignity and rights of indigenous peoples.”

The Vatican statement fails to say what historical research it is referencing as the basis for the above assertion. It seems strange for the Vatican to claim that the papal documents of the fifteenth century are not “expressions of the Catholic faith.” We have quoted above many examples of the Catholic faith in the “Divine Majesty” and “Almighty God” being invoked in those documents. Faith may be understood as having “complete trust or confidence in someone or something”; in the papal bull of May 4, 1493 we find a sentence that is an expression of the Catholic faith: “We trust [confidentes, in Latin] in Him from whom empires and dominations and all good things proceed.”

An expression of faith or confidence in the deity of the Catholic Church (“Him”) is certainly an expression of Catholic faith. In this language we see the assertion by pope Alexander VI that the deity of the Catholic Church is the source or origin of empires and dominations and “all good things” (wealth and power) that result from empires and dominations, such as the 177 million acres of land and incalculable wealth in the possession of the Vatican as a result of the fifteenth century papal bulls.

Point 6 of the statement continues: “The Church is also aware that the contents of these documents [of domination] were manipulated for political purposes by competing colonial powers in order to justify immoral acts against indigenous peoples, that were carried out, at times, [for centuries], without opposition from ecclesiastical authorities. It is only just to recognize these errors, acknowledge the terrible effects of [the Holy See’s papal bulls of domination, as well as] the assimilation policies and the pain experienced by indigenous peoples, and ask for pardon [for the Church oppressing them for centuries].”

Point 6 states: “Furthermore, Pope Francis has urged ‘Never again can the Christian community allow itself to be infected by the idea that one culture is superior to others, or that it is legitimate to employ ways of coercing others’ [in keeping with the patterns of domination found in the papal bulls].” There is also no mention or disavowal of “the idea that one religion is superior to others.”

Point 7 of the statement reads: “In no uncertain terms, the Church’s magisterium upholds the respect due to every human being. The Catholic [Universal] Church therefore repudiates those concepts that fail to recognize the inherent human rights of indigenous peoples, including what has become known as the legal and political ‘doctrine of discovery’.” This quote implies that the Church’s magisterium has always, even in the past, upheld “the respect due to every human being,” which is obviously contradicted by the Holy See’s declaration that non-Christian “pagan” and “infidel” peoples are to be invaded, captured, vanquished, and subdued, reduced to perpetual slavery, so that all their possessions and property could be plundered and stripped from them, and expropriated by the Christian world.

Point 8 of the statement reads: “Numerous and repeated statements by the Church and the Popes uphold the rights of indigenous peoples. For example, in the 1537 bull Sublimus Deus, Pope Paul III wrote: ‘We define and declare […] that […] the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the Christian faith; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and possessions and property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect’.”

Let’s think about the logic of the above statement for a moment.

While the Vatican had no difficulty quoting the positive language from the papal bull Sublimis Deus, the March 30, 2023, statement does not include any quote from the language of domination found in the earlier papal bulls. The Vatican statement also fails to include the fact that the Sublimis Deus was revoked under pressure from Spanish Emperor, Charles V.

In the book Red Man’s Land, White Mans Law (1971), Wilcomb Washburn quotes the papal bull Sublimis Deus issued by Pope Paul II in 1537. In part the language states that the Indians are to be considered “truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it.” That declaration was in keeping with Matthew 28:18-20, to make disciples of all nations and baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Washburn then states: “It was a noble try but to little avail. Emperor Charles ordered confiscated and returned to the Council of the Indies all copies of the bull that might have found their way to the New World. At the same time he [the Emperor] prevailed upon the Pope, ten days later, to revoke the bull. Minaya, [the Dominican priest who appealed to Pope Paul III to issue a papal bull favorable to the Indians], was imprisoned for failing to go through proper channels, was thrown in prison by the general of the Dominican order.” (p. 13) The pope removed all ecclesiastical penalties associated with Sublimis Deus, such as excommunication and interdict.

Papal Bulls Invoked in 1680 by the Spanish Crown in the Compilation of the Laws of the Indies

The papal bull Sublimis Deus did not revoke the earlier papal bulls from the fifteenth century, which were made by Pope Alexander VI, for example, “en perpetua” (eternally or forever). In A Violent Evangelism (1992), Dr. Luis Rivera-Pagán points to the 1680 Compilation of the Leyes de Indias [Laws of the Indies], produced one hundred forty-three years after the papal bull of 1537. Rivera-Pagán states: “In the juridical area, the Alexandrine bulls maintained their authorized character, as shown by the first sentence in the first law of the first chapter of the third book of ‘the Compilation of the Leyes de Indias’ (1680), which recognizes them [the papal bulls of 1493] as the first foundation for the possession in perpetuity of the Americas by the Crown of Castilla.” (emphasis added) If those bulls had been abrogated or revoked by the papal bull of 1537, there would be no basis upon which the Spanish crown could continue to invoke them:

“By donation from the Apostolic Holy See . . . we are Lord of the Western Idies, isles and mainlands of the Ocean Sea, discovered and to be discovered and incorporated into our Royal Crown of Castile . . . [so that] they may always remain united for their greater perpetuity and firmness, we forbid them being taken away.”...

“This law,” says Dr. Luis Rivera-Pagan, “is based on consecutive royal declarations by Carlos V and Philip II, who during the sixteenth century propounded the doctrine of Castilian dominion [domination] in perpetuity over the Ibero-American peoples. All those declarations alluded to the Alexandrian bulls as the crucial point of reference.” [p. 32]

Point 9 of the statement reads: “More recently, the Church’s solidarity with indigenous peoples has given rise to the Holy See’s strong support for the principles contained in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The implementation of those principles would improve their living conditions and help protect the rights of indigenous peoples as well as facilitate their development in a way that respects their identity, language, and culture.” Unfortunately, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples itself does not explicitly and thoroughly address the system of domination that is being used against Indigenous nations and peoples.


 Today Indigenous nations and peoples live with the “legal,” psychological and other forms of wreckage brought about by the fifteenth century Vatican documents issued by various popes. How many nations and peoples are no longer existing as a result of those documents? How many languages, evolved over thousands and thousands of years by the ancestors of original nations and peoples, are no longer existing as result of those destructive documents? How many acres and hectares of land of the original (Indigenous) nations and peoples are now under the claim of a right of domination as a result of those papal bulls? The number of potential questions regarding all the torment and abuse and suffering caused by the legacy of those documents is staggering.

 The Vatican March 30, 2023 statement on the Doctrine of Discovery heightens awareness of the roots of the patterns of domination found in the Vatican papal bulls that were adopted into United States law in the 1823 U.S. Supreme Court ruling Johnson and Graham’s Lessee v. McIntosh, two hundred years ago this year. Evidence of those religious domination patterns is found in the distinction made in the Johnson ruling by Chief Justice John Marshall between “Christian people” and “natives, who were heathens,” and in his claim of United States “ultimate dominion” [domination]” over “heathen” Native nations and their lands. The U.S. Supreme Court has made the 15th century claims of a right of domination foundational to U.S. federal anti-Indian law and policy, and the claim of the “plenary power” of Congress over “Indians.” The claim of a right of domination must be abandoned and ended if there is to be any rightful relationship between the descendants of the colonizers and Indigenous nations and peoples today.

The patterns of domination that were unleashed on the planet by means of the Vatican documents have had devastating consequences that have been manifested in, for example, the theft and kidnapping of our children from their loved ones and families, as well as murdered and missing Indigenous women, the expropriation of our lands and waters, the destruction of our original free existence by robbing us of our liberty and forcing us under a system of domination, the poisoning of land, water, air, and our bloodstreams with toxic chemicals, the attempt to intentionally kill our languages (i.e., Linguicide), intentionally teaching the abuse of women and children, the destruction and desecration of our Sacred and Significant Places, to name just some of the ways in which the Holy See’s papal bulls of the fifteenth century have destructively impacted and continue to destructively impact our original nations and peoples.

How much land of our original nations does the Vatican currently hold as “property” throughout the Western Hemisphere? Every acre [or hectare] of land in the Western hemisphere that is in the possession of the Vatican and the Catholic Church is a result of the papal decrees of the fifteenth century that we are talking about here. If the Vatican is sincere, let’s talk about its land holdings, how they got hold of all that land of Indigenous nations and peoples, and how they are going to abandon their claim of a right of domination over those areas.

We at the ILI, in solidarity with Original Nations and Peoples, will continue to call upon the Holy See to not simply “renounce” the “doctrine” inherent in the papal bulls, but to abandon the papal bulls themselves by revoking them. We do this as part of our effort to publicize and challenge the patterns of domination globally and to challenge the patterns of domination expressed in the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling and in other legal decisions that are based on Johnson into the 21st century.

Vera Sharav's Aug 2022 Historic Nuremberg Speech, Illustrated and Never Again IS NOW GLOBAL

In the wake of the Second World War, the first international war crimes tribunal was held in Nuremberg, Germany. Among the accused were doctors who had carried out unspeakable medical experiments on concentration camp prisoners. In order to prevent a recurrence of these horrors, a set of ten ethical research principles were devised They became known as the Nuremberg Code.

Research and Editing by Evan Dominguez
Produced by The PRESS and the PUBLIC PROJECT

Complete film of Vera Sharav's 20 Aug 2022 address with full transcript.


Additionally, the following Appendices from History Will Not Absolve Us (Dec 2022) scratch the surface of the global holocaust occurring from the experimental injections of demonstration United States Department of Defense Countermeasures being perpetrated by government decrees, mandates and relentless corporate state propaganda:
I. Deaths from C19 Vaccines (updated 04-07-23)
II. Pfizer Post-Marketing Data, Dec 2020 - Feb 2021
IV. C19 Vaccine Deaths: Analysis & Reports (updated 08-31-23)
V. C19 Vaccine Injuries: Analysis & Reports (updated 08-29-23)


In Memory of Those Who Have “Died Suddenly”
Mark Crispin Miller, News from Underground, 1 Feb 2022 to ongoing

That no one authority in the FDA, CDC, NIAID, NIH, HHS, and/or DOD will yet acknowledge nor address the inescapable evidence and morally bankrupt contradictions that belie the “safe and effective” dogma by government and media talking heads should give one pause: